Assumption of Mary?

[walter1234]

How does the orthodox church understand of' Assumption of Mary in Heaven'? What is the difference between Catholic and orthodoxy on 'Assumption of Mary'?

Does orthodox christians believe that Virgin Mary's body was resurrected on the third day after her death, and her tomb was found empty on the third day? If yes, which historical document records this issue?

[Dominika]

Holy Theotokos died as every man because it's the effect of the orignal sin. But because She was so holy and She was Mother of God, on the third day She was resurrected and taken with body and soul to Heaven. Orthodox focus on this falling asleep (that's why we call this feast "Dormition of the Theotokos", not "Assumption"). Some Catholics (but not all becasue tehre is no official teaching about it) believe that Holy Theotokos hasn't died so She was directly taken to Heaven. That's the difference.

So, it's an ancient oral tradition, written down a few ages after it had happenned. Why not to believe to Holy Fathers? And, we have one relict of the Holy Theotokos: Her omophorion (Holy Belt) - it was left to the apostle Thomas, who was late for this event - similary as after Christ's resurrection. BTW, according to the New Style, tomorrow is the feast of the Protection of the Theotokos and it's connected also with Her omophorion.

[Kerdy]

Holy Theotokos died as every man because it's the effect of the orignal sin. But because She was so holy and She was Mother of God, on the third day She was resurrected and taken with body and soul to Heaven. Orthodox focus on this falling asleep (that's why we call this feast "Dormition of the Theotokos", not "Assumption"). Some Catholics (but not all becasue tehre is no official teaching about it) believe that Holy Theotokos hasn't died so She was directly taken to Heaven. That's the difference.

So, it's an ancient oral tradition, written down a few ages after it had happenned. Why not to believe to Holy Fathers? And, we have one relict of the Holy Theotokos: Her omophorion (Holy Belt) - it was left to the apostle Thomas, who was late for this event - similary as after Christ's resurrection. BTW, according to the New Style, tomorrow is the feast of the Protection of the Theotokos and it's connected also with Her omophorion.

Is her omophorion still maintained somewhere?

[LBK]

Her omophorion (Holy Belt)

The belt of the Mother of God (Aghia Zoni) is a different garment to her maphorion (veil, worn on her head and shoulders). An omophorion is the strip of cloth worn over the shoulders (omophorion means that which is worn/carried on the shoulders) which is part of a bishop's vestments, and which symbolizes his authority as bishop.

It is easy and common to confuse maphorion with omophorion. 

[choy]

Holy Theotokos died as every man because it's the effect of the orignal sin. But because She was so holy and She was Mother of God, on the third day She was resurrected and taken with body and soul to Heaven. Orthodox focus on this falling asleep (that's why we call this feast "Dormition of the Theotokos", not "Assumption"). Some Catholics (but not all becasue tehre is no official teaching about it) believe that Holy Theotokos hasn't died so She was directly taken to Heaven. That's the difference.

So, it's an ancient oral tradition, written down a few ages after it had happenned. Why not to believe to Holy Fathers? And, we have one relict of the Holy Theotokos: Her omophorion (Holy Belt) - it was left to the apostle Thomas, who was late for this event - similary as after Christ's resurrection. BTW, according to the New Style, tomorrow is the feast of the Protection of the Theotokos and it's connected also with Her omophorion.

Contrary to public opinion, the Catholic Church does teach that Mary died.  Read the entire dogmatic proclamation on the Assumption.  The problem with those who believe that Mary didn't die only focus on that one line at the end of that Apostolic Constitution and just because it was worded in a way that doesn't say "died" or "death", they think there was a possibility that she didn't die.  But it is mentioned at least 5 times throughout the whole document, how can anyone even deny that?

[Dominika]

Her omophorion (Holy Belt)

The belt of the Mother of God (Aghia Zoni) is a different garment to her maphorion (veil, worn on her head and shoulders). An omophorion is the strip of cloth worn over the shoulders (omophorion means that which is worn/carried on the shoulders) which is part of a bishop's vestments, and which symbolizes his authority as bishop.

It is easy and common to confuse maphorion with omophorion. 

I'm sorry and thank you, I always confuse it; I think right, but say not proper name

Contrary to public opinion, the Catholic Church does teach that Mary died.  Read the entire dogmatic proclamation on the Assumption.  The problem with those who believe that Mary didn't die only focus on that one line at the end of that Apostolic Constitution and just because it was worded in a way that doesn't say "died" or "death", they think there was a possibility that she didn't die.  But it is mentioned at least 5 times throughout the whole document, how can anyone even deny that?

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

[choy]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

[Papist]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

[J Michael]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

[choy]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

I already did that for you... http://ercf.blogspot.ca/2012/01/immaculate-misconception.html

[Shanghaiski]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

It might help if RC liturgical texts mentioned her death. The pre-1960, post 1950 Benedictine texts don't. Their primary focus is with the bodily assumption. In the East, it's the opposite. The bodily assumption of the Mother of God is barely if at all mentioned, but there are copious references to her funeral and falling asleep.

[orthonorm]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

Why do you think so many RCs and otherwise believe she didn't die? As I have mentioned here before, many RCs I've spoken with think the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ's conception.

I wonder if it is because they hear "assumption" and figure it has something to do with not dying.

I ain't harshing on RC catechesis, just asking.

[orthonorm]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

It might help if RC liturgical texts mentioned her death. The pre-1960, post 1950 Benedictine texts don't. Their primary focus is with the bodily assumption. In the East, it's the opposite. The bodily assumption of the Mother of God is barely if at all mentioned, but there are copious references to her funeral and falling asleep.

Perhaps this answers my question above.

[Shanghaiski]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

It might help if RC liturgical texts mentioned her death. The pre-1960, post 1950 Benedictine texts don't. Their primary focus is with the bodily assumption. In the East, it's the opposite. The bodily assumption of the Mother of God is barely if at all mentioned, but there are copious references to her funeral and falling asleep.

Perhaps this answers my question above.

Although it should be mentioned that RC liturigcal texts are terse. I don't know how they are now, but pre-1960 they were mostly based on the Psalms, apart from antiphons and hymns and collects.

[J Michael]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

I already did that for you... http://ercf.blogspot.ca/2012/01/immaculate-misconception.html

[J Michael]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

Why do you think so many RCs and otherwise believe she didn't die? As I have mentioned here before, many RCs I've spoken with think the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ's conception.

I wonder if it is because they hear "assumption" and figure it has something to do with not dying.

I ain't harshing on RC catechesis, just asking.

Dunno. 

[Dominika]

It might help if RC liturgical texts mentioned her death. The pre-1960, post 1950 Benedictine texts don't. Their primary focus is with the bodily assumption. In the East, it's the opposite. The bodily assumption of the Mother of God is barely if at all mentioned, but there are copious references to her funeral and falling asleep.

Perhaps this answers my question above.

Although it should be mentioned that RC liturgical texts are terse. I don't know how they are now, but pre-1960 they were mostly based on the Psalms, apart from antiphons and hymns and collects.

Shanghaiski, you are absolutely right. That's one of many reasons I don't like RC liturgy, especially on feasts, because from this liturgy you can't get know what you celebrate.

I remember the solemn Masses celebrated on this feast in my ex-RC parish. All hymns connected with st. Mary, but nothing about assumption or dormition. There was only one line, sung between "alleluias" before the Gospel, that has been proclaiming "St. Mary was taken to Heaven, the angel hosts rejoice". So, it's not so strange, that people hearing it are not sure if She's died. Also in the prayer called "preface' is only mentioned that Christ didn't want that His Mother's Body would be corrupted.

[Papist]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

Why do you think so many RCs and otherwise believe she didn't die? As I have mentioned here before, many RCs I've spoken with think the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ's conception.

I wonder if it is because they hear "assumption" and figure it has something to do with not dying.

I ain't harshing on RC catechesis, just asking.

Pop theology. People think that becasue they have read something somewhere, that it must be true and they can make doctrinal deductions from it. It's harder to do the serious work of theology and actually read the source material.

[orthonorm]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

Why do you think so many RCs and otherwise believe she didn't die? As I have mentioned here before, many RCs I've spoken with think the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ's conception.

I wonder if it is because they hear "assumption" and figure it has something to do with not dying.

I ain't harshing on RC catechesis, just asking.

Pop theology. People think that becasue they have read something somewhere, that it must be true and they can make doctrinal deductions from it. It's harder to do the serious work of theology and actually read the source material.

But why doesn't a person having celebrated the Assumption of the Virgin Mary walk away knowing she died (especially since most folks I imagine are celebrating it in their own tongue nowadays)? Again perhaps Shanghaiski answered that question.

I am not up on RC liturgical texts, so I have no idea.

[Deacon Lance]

There is a Roman Catholic Church in Jerusalem named the Dormition (not Assumption) with a tomb of Mary with an effigy of her lying in death.
http://www.seetheholyland.net/church-of-the-dormition/

[Papist]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

Why do you think so many RCs and otherwise believe she didn't die? As I have mentioned here before, many RCs I've spoken with think the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ's conception.

I wonder if it is because they hear "assumption" and figure it has something to do with not dying.

I ain't harshing on RC catechesis, just asking.

Pop theology. People think that becasue they have read something somewhere, that it must be true and they can make doctrinal deductions from it. It's harder to do the serious work of theology and actually read the source material.

But why doesn't a person having celebrated the Assumption of the Virgin Mary walk away knowing she died (especially since most folks I imagine are celebrating it in their own tongue nowadays)? Again perhaps Shanghaiski answered that question.

I am not up on RC liturgical texts, so I have no idea.

Well, part of the standard answer is bad catechesis. But of course, that is our answer for everything these days. Perahps shanghaiski is right, and I will have to check out the liturgy for the feast of the assumption. Another point is that Catholics, for the most part, are ignorant of the contorversy between the EO church and the Catholic Church.

[choy]

Pop theology. People think that becasue they have read something somewhere, that it must be true and they can make doctrinal deductions from it. It's harder to do the serious work of theology and actually read the source material.

I agree.  And like I said, bad priests.  I can't believe this "Jesus feeds the 5000" heresy has spread where the priest says there wasn't really any real miracle with the feeding of the 5000.  That every person there brought something to eat and that when Jesus blessed the bread and fish, everyone just took out what they had and shared among each other.  The sharing was the miracle, not the multiplication of loaves.  I heard it long ago and again this year I've heard some Catholics complain about it online.  It is the same case with the Assumption.  Not that the CCC is helping in anyway because of the way how the dogmatic declaration was worded, I would say it is so easy to believe it either way.  Most Catholics won't read the Apostolic Constitution, they'd rather just stick with the CCC or Canon Law for internet debate purposes

[Deacon Lance]

But why doesn't a person having celebrated the Assumption of the Virgin Mary walk away knowing she died (especially since most folks I imagine are celebrating it in their own tongue nowadays)? Again perhaps Shanghaiski answered that question.

I am not up on RC liturgical texts, so I have no idea.

I would venture to guess the Latin point of view is: everbody dies that isn't a big deal and isn't what is being specifically celebrated. Only the Theotokos was assumed into heaven and that is the point of the feast.  Also, as has already been stated, Roman Rite liturgical texts are terse and don't expound much on any given feast at least not the way Byzantine texts do.

[choy]

But why doesn't a person having celebrated the Assumption of the Virgin Mary walk away knowing she died (especially since most folks I imagine are celebrating it in their own tongue nowadays)? Again perhaps Shanghaiski answered that question.

I am not up on RC liturgical texts, so I have no idea.

I would venture to guess the Latin point of view is: everbody dies that isn't a big deal and isn't what is being specifically celebrated. Only the Theotokos was assumed into heaven and that is the point of the feast.  Also, as has already been stated, Roman Rite liturgical texts are terse and don't expound much on any given feast at least not the way Byzantine texts do.

I think the problem too is that Latins is pretty close to being Marian worshipers.  This is honest criticism from another Catholic.  I think they've put Mary on such a high pedestal that for them it doesn't make sense for Mary to die because she is just that great.  I mean, God excused her from Original Sin, right?  Why not death?  They even wouldn't think about how Jesus conquered death with His own death, thus Mary's dormition isn't the death we used to know prior to Calvary.

[Papist]

But why doesn't a person having celebrated the Assumption of the Virgin Mary walk away knowing she died (especially since most folks I imagine are celebrating it in their own tongue nowadays)? Again perhaps Shanghaiski answered that question.

I am not up on RC liturgical texts, so I have no idea.

I would venture to guess the Latin point of view is: everbody dies that isn't a big deal and isn't what is being specifically celebrated. Only the Theotokos was assumed into heaven and that is the point of the feast.  Also, as has already been stated, Roman Rite liturgical texts are terse and don't expound much on any given feast at least not the way Byzantine texts do.

I think the problem too is that Latins is pretty close to being Marian worshipers.  This is honest criticism from another Catholic.  I think they've put Mary on such a high pedestal that for them it doesn't make sense for Mary to die because she is just that great.  I mean, God excused her from Original Sin, right?  Why not death?  They even wouldn't think about how Jesus conquered death with His own death, thus Mary's dormition isn't the death we used to know prior to Calvary.

Not sure how excludeding Mary from the category of those who inherit original sin constitutes worship. It would be worship if we suggested she was not dependent on God. It would be worship if we suggested that she was equal with God. It would be worship if we offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Mary. But since we do none of these things, I fail to grasp your point. In a similar way, a Protestant might suggest that you worship Mary because you exclude her from the class of persons who have committed personal sin.

[orthonorm]

In a similar way, a Protestant might suggest that you worship Mary because you exclude her from the class of persons who have committed personal sin.

It would be a weird claim.

Sin is always personal.

[Papist]

But why doesn't a person having celebrated the Assumption of the Virgin Mary walk away knowing she died (especially since most folks I imagine are celebrating it in their own tongue nowadays)? Again perhaps Shanghaiski answered that question.

I am not up on RC liturgical texts, so I have no idea.

I would venture to guess the Latin point of view is: everbody dies that isn't a big deal and isn't what is being specifically celebrated. Only the Theotokos was assumed into heaven and that is the point of the feast.  Also, as has already been stated, Roman Rite liturgical texts are terse and don't expound much on any given feast at least not the way Byzantine texts do.

I think the problem too is that Latins is pretty close to being Marian worshipers.  This is honest criticism from another Catholic.  I think they've put Mary on such a high pedestal that for them it doesn't make sense for Mary to die because she is just that great.  I mean, God excused her from Original Sin, right?  Why not death?  They even wouldn't think about how Jesus conquered death with His own death, thus Mary's dormition isn't the death we used to know prior to Calvary.

Doesn't the Byzantine Liturgy call Mary "more honorable than cherabim" and "more glorious than the seraphim?" What about where it calls her "All holy?"

[Shanghaiski]

But why doesn't a person having celebrated the Assumption of the Virgin Mary walk away knowing she died (especially since most folks I imagine are celebrating it in their own tongue nowadays)? Again perhaps Shanghaiski answered that question.

I am not up on RC liturgical texts, so I have no idea.

I would venture to guess the Latin point of view is: everbody dies that isn't a big deal and isn't what is being specifically celebrated. Only the Theotokos was assumed into heaven and that is the point of the feast.  Also, as has already been stated, Roman Rite liturgical texts are terse and don't expound much on any given feast at least not the way Byzantine texts do.

I think the problem too is that Latins is pretty close to being Marian worshipers.  This is honest criticism from another Catholic.  I think they've put Mary on such a high pedestal that for them it doesn't make sense for Mary to die because she is just that great.  I mean, God excused her from Original Sin, right?  Why not death?  They even wouldn't think about how Jesus conquered death with His own death, thus Mary's dormition isn't the death we used to know prior to Calvary.

Doesn't the Byzantine Liturgy call Mary "more honorable than cherabim" and "more glorious than the seraphim?" What about where it calls her "All holy?"

Indeed. And more.

The Antiochian Western Rite had to actually add more refs to the Mother of God in its edited Liturgy of St. Gregory (basically the Tridentine Mass), IIRC, so that it would comport more with the Orthodox phronema.

[choy]

There have been in many cases too much emphasis on Mary in the Roman Catholic Church.  I believe in many cases it has become unhealthy spiritually. I've seen people say that the only way to heaven is to pray the Rosary.  And some people see Jesus as someone we cannot approach without a mediator which is Mary.  But that is only true with the Father whom we need Jesus to be able to approach.  I attribute this to poor catechesis.  I don't see how "more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare than the Seraphim" would amount to worship as compared to those who think that we can be saved by Mary directly.

[Shanghaiski]

There have been in many cases too much emphasis on Mary in the Roman Catholic Church.  I believe in many cases it has become unhealthy spiritually. I've seen people say that the only way to heaven is to pray the Rosary.  And some people see Jesus as someone we cannot approach without a mediator which is Mary.  But that is only true with the Father whom we need Jesus to be able to approach.  I attribute this to poor catechesis.  I don't see how "more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare than the Seraphim" would amount to worship as compared to those who think that we can be saved by Mary directly.

From an Orthodox perspective, besides the Immaculate Conception, problematic RC Mariology woud include things like "the reign of Jesus through Mary," and much Marian veneration and writing that occurs from the Counterreformation onward--Alphonsus di Ligouri and Louis de Montfort, for example.

[Papist]

There have been in many cases too much emphasis on Mary in the Roman Catholic Church.  I believe in many cases it has become unhealthy spiritually. I've seen people say that the only way to heaven is to pray the Rosary.  And some people see Jesus as someone we cannot approach without a mediator which is Mary.  But that is only true with the Father whom we need Jesus to be able to approach.  I attribute this to poor catechesis.  I don't see how "more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare than the Seraphim" would amount to worship as compared to those who think that we can be saved by Mary directly.

From an Orthodox perspective, besides the Immaculate Conception, problematic RC Mariology woud include things like "the reign of Jesus through Mary," and much Marian veneration and writing that occurs from the Counterreformation onward--Alphonsus di Ligouri and Louis de Montfort, for example.

Well, I actaully agree that St. Louis De Monfort can be a bit excessive at times, but keep in mind that St. Louis is not the magesterium.

[J Michael]

There have been in many cases too much emphasis on Mary in the Roman Catholic Church.  I believe in many cases it has become unhealthy spiritually. I've seen people say that the only way to heaven is to pray the Rosary.  And some people see Jesus as someone we cannot approach without a mediator which is Mary.  But that is only true with the Father whom we need Jesus to be able to approach.  I attribute this to poor catechesis.  I don't see how "more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare than the Seraphim" would amount to worship as compared to those who think that we can be saved by Mary directly.

From an Orthodox perspective, besides the Immaculate Conception, problematic RC Mariology woud include things like "the reign of Jesus through Mary," and much Marian veneration and writing that occurs from the Counterreformation onward--Alphonsus di Ligouri and Louis de Montfort, for example.

Well, I actaully agree that St. Louis De Monfort can be a bit excessive at times, but keep in mind that St. Louis is not the magesterium.

It seems that there are a number of people, Orthodox *and* Catholics, who are somewhat confused and unclear about what the magesterium is.  A quick Google search yields much information about that should they choose to inform themselves further.    (Caution about quick Google searches: discern carefully for accuracy.)

[Αριστοκλής]

You mean "magesterium" is not the consensus of the church as the pope declares it to be?

Yep...never understood it. 

[Papist]

You mean "magesterium" is not the consensus of the church as the pope declares it to be?

Yep...never understood it. 
[/quote
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Can you elaborate?

[choy]

You mean "magesterium" is not the consensus of the church as the pope declares it to be?

Yep...never understood it. 

The magisterium can be the bishops in consensus, or the Pope acting inffalibly and supremely (which the Orthodox denounce).

[Αριστοκλής]

You mean "magesterium" is not the consensus of the church as the pope declares it to be?

Yep...never understood it. 

The magisterium can be the bishops in consensus, or the Pope acting inffalibly and supremely (which the Orthodox denounce).

That helps, sort of. Thanks.

[Papist]

You mean "magesterium" is not the consensus of the church as the pope declares it to be?

Yep...never understood it. 

The magisterium can be the bishops in consensus, or the Pope acting inffalibly and supremely (which the Orthodox denounce).

That helps, sort of. Thanks.

No more complicated an issue than how many councils are ecumenical, and what consitutes an ecumenical council, and whether this or that is necessary for belief in an Orthodox Church.

[Alpo]

I know some Catholics (even priests) who have doubts regarding this issue or say that this dogmatic proclamation does not say exactly what the assumption means (death or not). So many people think that Orthodox and Catholic issue about the Dormition is different, but in reality it's just the question of feast's name and central point of it (Orthodox - dormition and Catholic - assumption)

The belief came from a misinterpretation.  They probably read the CCC and just made conclusions from there.  One really has to read the Apostolic Constitution to understand what that phrase means.  Sadly the quality of priests have been going down.  And I do not mean just on this teaching.

Agreed, I'm pretty certain, after reading the document in which the Assumption of Mary was declared de fide, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that Mary did, in fact, die. I don't see how a person who so intimately united herself to the life of her Son, Jesus, could not die as he did.

Yes.  Here's the document for anyone who's interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just doing Control + F and entering the word "death" in the search field will make it pretty clear that the Theotokos did die.

Why do you think so many RCs and otherwise believe she didn't die? As I have mentioned here before, many RCs I've spoken with think the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ's conception.

I wonder if it is because they hear "assumption" and figure it has something to do with not dying.

I ain't harshing on RC catechesis, just asking.

Pop theology. People think that becasue they have read something somewhere, that it must be true and they can make doctrinal deductions from it. It's harder to do the serious work of theology and actually read the source material.

But why doesn't a person having celebrated the Assumption of the Virgin Mary walk away knowing she died (especially since most folks I imagine are celebrating it in their own tongue nowadays)?

Beats me.

Yesterday the meditation from St. Alphonsus was on
the Death of Most Holy Mary.



By today the beautiful funeral couch of the Mother of God
had been erected with a pall overhanging Her figure.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Assumption of Mary?