The Assumptio or Transitus? 9th to 12th c. Latin Theology the Mother of God

[Christopher McAvoy]

I encourage everyone to read this article and compare the role and form of theological interpretation of the role of the Mother of God in Latin rite theology from between the 9th to 12th centuries. the sequences compared are the 9th c. "Aurea flore" to the 11th c. "Aurea virga prim(a)e matris" (which became the main sequence used in the Sarum use of England between 1100-1534 AD.)

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g3003tt#page-4

It does note a clear evolution of different ideas of the Assumption and role of the Most Holy Mother of God. I would like to know if anyone finds this evolution as described in the article or the translations of these two sequences to be an "Orthodox" development.

Is the later 11th/12th c. role still perfectly acceptable within western rite Orthodoxy today?

One could even ask the same question concerning iconography...
by the 1180's there were a few select images showing an actual "assumption" and Mary crowned as queen of heaven by Our Lord or Angels. Though even in the 13th century the dominant image continued to be the transitus type or a combination of both above and below. But by the 16th century the her assumption into heaven in very humanistic style is most assuredly the dominant image.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I encourage everyone to read this article and compare the role and form of theological interpretation of the role of the Mother of God in Latin rite theology from between the 9th to 12th centuries. the sequences compared are the 9th c. "Aurea flore" to the 11th c. "Aurea virga prim(a)e matris" (which became the main sequence used in the Sarum use of England between 1100-1534 AD.)

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g3003tt#page-4

It does note a clear evolution of different ideas of the Assumption and role of the Most Holy Mother of God. I would like to know if anyone finds this evolution as described in the article or the translations of these two sequences to be an "Orthodox" development.

Is the later 11th/12th c. role still perfectly acceptable within western rite Orthodoxy today?

One could even ask the same question concerning iconography...
by the 1180's there were a few select images showing an actual "assumption" and Mary crowned as queen of heaven by Our Lord or Angels. Though even in the 13th century the dominant image continued to be the transitus type or a combination of both above and below. But by the 16th century the her assumption into heaven in very humanistic style is most assuredly the dominant image.

I just finished working on a Lesson about the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and I am very interesting in contributing to this thread.  However, not at the moment, so I am posting this to find it later

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[witega]

It does note a clear evolution of different ideas of the Assumption and role of the Most Holy Mother of God. I would like to know if anyone finds this evolution as described in the article or the translations of these two sequences to be an "Orthodox" development.

So the original teaching was one thing (which happened to coincide with the Eastern teaching tending to indicate a common origin). Then instead of sticking to the tradition (what was handed down), it was identifiably changed? How is this even a question?

[LBK]

The Orthodox hymnography for the feast of the Dormition dates from no later than the mid-to-late eighth century. Hymnographers for this feast include Sts John of Damascus, Germanus of Constantinople, and Kosmas of Maiuma. The dominant theme of the feast is the earthly death and burial of the Mother of God; her miraculous bodily assumption is important, but secondary.

Given the age of the liturgical texts, it cannot be concluded that the supplanting in importance of the assumption of the Mother of God over her death and burial in later centuries is an "Orthodox development".

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It does note a clear evolution of different ideas of the Assumption and role of the Most Holy Mother of God. I would like to know if anyone finds this evolution as described in the article or the translations of these two sequences to be an "Orthodox" development.

Is the later 11th/12th c. role still perfectly acceptable within western rite Orthodoxy today?

I am curious how the Latin could be so behind schedule. If anything then, this makes me question a bit of historicity of this author's assertions about supposed evolution of theological interpretation of the Assumption.  I'm not entirely buying that there was  paradigm shift from the Virgin Mary being the Mother of God to the Virgin Mary becoming the Mediatrix.  The Fathers assert the same use of imagery before the 10th and 11th centuries.  So this thesis I feel is flawed because it asserts that the entire history of the Latin Church can be interpreted by comparing two manuscripts.  Surely its more complicated than that.  Regardless, both views expressed in this article about the role of the Virgin do not seem to be contradictory or conflicting to Orthodox, both seem correct at least from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: The Assumptio or Transitus? 9th to 12th c. Latin Theology the Mother of God