In What Year Was Mary Assumed into Heaven?
In What Year Was Mary Assumed into Heaven? The Date of the Assumption There is no record of the exact day or year in which our Lady was assumed. This should not bother us too much. After all, we are …More
In What Year Was Mary Assumed into Heaven?
The Date of the Assumption
There is no record of the exact day or year in which our Lady was assumed. This should not bother us too much. After all, we are not sure of the day and year of Christ's birth, baptism, or death and resurrection.
However, we can get close. Let's look a few clues pertaining to the life and death of Mary.
Why is there little mention of Mary in Acts or the Epistles? I believe that the New Testament speaks of the mysteries of the faith in clouded language on account of the fierce persecution that Christians received from both the Jews and the Romans.
The tradition is almost universal that her death and resurrection occurred in Jerusalem. An alternate version has arisen from the visions of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich that her death, funeral, and assumption occurred in Ephesus.
Interestingly enough, Emmerich places the date of the assumption at A.D. 43 or 44. One argument against dating the Assumption to the AD 40s is that …More
The Date of the Assumption
There is no record of the exact day or year in which our Lady was assumed. This should not bother us too much. After all, we are not sure of the day and year of Christ's birth, baptism, or death and resurrection.
However, we can get close. Let's look a few clues pertaining to the life and death of Mary.
Why is there little mention of Mary in Acts or the Epistles? I believe that the New Testament speaks of the mysteries of the faith in clouded language on account of the fierce persecution that Christians received from both the Jews and the Romans.
The tradition is almost universal that her death and resurrection occurred in Jerusalem. An alternate version has arisen from the visions of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich that her death, funeral, and assumption occurred in Ephesus.
Interestingly enough, Emmerich places the date of the assumption at A.D. 43 or 44. One argument against dating the Assumption to the AD 40s is that …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
It is therefore heresy to state that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected.
Until the Church defines it infallibly, which has NOT occurred, it is not heresy to believe that Mary died even though you believe it is. If she did die, then she would have to have been “resurrected” before she was assumed into heaven. There is no heresy in that.
If you choose to believe that she did not die, you are …More
It is therefore heresy to state that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected.
Until the Church defines it infallibly, which has NOT occurred, it is not heresy to believe that Mary died even though you believe it is. If she did die, then she would have to have been “resurrected” before she was assumed into heaven. There is no heresy in that.
If you choose to believe that she did not die, you are no more of an heretic than the author of this article and others like him who believe that she did.
It's not a critical point and therefore not one to belabor.
@ Cannoli - Let us begin with the Patristic church.
However, it is in the Lirurgy of the Church wherein we find the crux of the matter.
No to both of your statements. As Catholics we are to begin and end in what the Church teaches infallibly without addition or speculation. While interesting, neither the Patristics, nor visionaries, nor the Liturgy define what is to be held by the faithful.
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.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
Munificentissimus Deus
Until the Church defines it infallibly, which has NOT occurred, it is not heresy to believe that Mary died even though you believe it is. If she did die, then she would have to have been “resurrected” before she was assumed into heaven. There is no heresy in that.
If you choose to believe that she did not die, you are no more of an heretic than the author of this article and others like him who believe that she did.
It's not a critical point and therefore not one to belabor.
@ Cannoli - Let us begin with the Patristic church.
However, it is in the Lirurgy of the Church wherein we find the crux of the matter.
No to both of your statements. As Catholics we are to begin and end in what the Church teaches infallibly without addition or speculation. While interesting, neither the Patristics, nor visionaries, nor the Liturgy define what is to be held by the faithful.
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.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
Munificentissimus Deus
@ Cannoli - Let us begin with the Patristic church. The earliest litterary mention of the Assumption occurs in De Obitu S. Dominae. For centuries, the Christian Church had no notion of Mary having died.
On the other hand, later on, John of Damascus (Patrologia Graeca, 96) states that at Chalcedon (451), the Bishop of Jerusalem proclaimed that Mary died in the presence of the Apostles. However, upon …More
@ Cannoli - Let us begin with the Patristic church. The earliest litterary mention of the Assumption occurs in De Obitu S. Dominae. For centuries, the Christian Church had no notion of Mary having died.
On the other hand, later on, John of Damascus (Patrologia Graeca, 96) states that at Chalcedon (451), the Bishop of Jerusalem proclaimed that Mary died in the presence of the Apostles. However, upon the Emperor Marcian and Pulcherian's demand for Her body (a prized relic now!), they found the tomb empty. This lead to the 'resurrection' theory.
On the other hand, It was not until Mvnificentissimvs Devs that things began to be ironed out. It was not until the Second Oecumenical Council of the Vatican wherein Holy Mother Church, while avoiding the definity of language required, stated that the Virgin Mary did not suffer the corruption of death. This indeed is vague, as She continues:
"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation" Lvmen Gentivm ~60
However, it is in the Lirurgy of the Church wherein we find the crux of the matter. In the Preface for the Solemnity of the Assumption, Holy Mother Church says:
"You [Father] would not allow decay to touch her body, for she had given birth to your Son, the Lord of Life, in the glory of the Incarnation."
Therefore, we have returned to the original belief of De Obitu S. Dominae here, however, now firmly articulated in the Lex Orandi of the modern church. It is therefore heresy to state that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected.
On the other hand, later on, John of Damascus (Patrologia Graeca, 96) states that at Chalcedon (451), the Bishop of Jerusalem proclaimed that Mary died in the presence of the Apostles. However, upon the Emperor Marcian and Pulcherian's demand for Her body (a prized relic now!), they found the tomb empty. This lead to the 'resurrection' theory.
On the other hand, It was not until Mvnificentissimvs Devs that things began to be ironed out. It was not until the Second Oecumenical Council of the Vatican wherein Holy Mother Church, while avoiding the definity of language required, stated that the Virgin Mary did not suffer the corruption of death. This indeed is vague, as She continues:
"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation" Lvmen Gentivm ~60
However, it is in the Lirurgy of the Church wherein we find the crux of the matter. In the Preface for the Solemnity of the Assumption, Holy Mother Church says:
"You [Father] would not allow decay to touch her body, for she had given birth to your Son, the Lord of Life, in the glory of the Incarnation."
Therefore, we have returned to the original belief of De Obitu S. Dominae here, however, now firmly articulated in the Lex Orandi of the modern church. It is therefore heresy to state that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected.
Tu_es_Petrus
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Yeah, what he said.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
according to Roman Catholic theology and Dogma, Our Lady did not die,
Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, does not define that the Blessed Virgin died, only that she "completed the course of her earthly life" (MD 44). Only the specific definition of the Assumption in paragraph 44 of Munificentissimus Deus is the infallible proclamation; the rest of the document is commentary. Although many …More
according to Roman Catholic theology and Dogma, Our Lady did not die,
Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, does not define that the Blessed Virgin died, only that she "completed the course of her earthly life" (MD 44). Only the specific definition of the Assumption in paragraph 44 of Munificentissimus Deus is the infallible proclamation; the rest of the document is commentary. Although many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary did die, the Church is officially silent on the matter.
If she died, her body was not allowed to corrupt in the grave but was reunited to her soul and assumed into heaven by God. This reunion and glorification of body and soul is the resurrection of the body that all of us look forward to at the end of time.
Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, does not define that the Blessed Virgin died, only that she "completed the course of her earthly life" (MD 44). Only the specific definition of the Assumption in paragraph 44 of Munificentissimus Deus is the infallible proclamation; the rest of the document is commentary. Although many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary did die, the Church is officially silent on the matter.
If she died, her body was not allowed to corrupt in the grave but was reunited to her soul and assumed into heaven by God. This reunion and glorification of body and soul is the resurrection of the body that all of us look forward to at the end of time.
Attention!There are serious dogmatic difficulties with this article in the language used leading to serious theological problems. Herein lies the problem: "her death and resurrection",( somewhat like some of the Eastern Orthodox sects). According to Roman Catholic theology and Dogma, Our Lady did not die, she was assumed body and soul into heaven (the biblical presidence being Elijah in the Old …More
Attention!There are serious dogmatic difficulties with this article in the language used leading to serious theological problems. Herein lies the problem: "her death and resurrection",( somewhat like some of the Eastern Orthodox sects). According to Roman Catholic theology and Dogma, Our Lady did not die, she was assumed body and soul into heaven (the biblical presidence being Elijah in the Old Testament).
This incorrect use of language in this article, leading to theological difficulties, therefore renders this article quite dubious indeed. Was this article composed by a Roman Catholic. Ergo, I must enquire, is the composer of this article Eastern Orthodox? No he is not, he is a convert from the Church of England and therefore this might explain the aforementioned careless language.
If the aforementioned problem in the language of this article is an error on the part of the composer, one hopes that Gloria.tv would seek out this fellow and endeavour to correct his mistake. On the other hand, if he means to say what he said, i.e. that Our Lady died and was resurrected, this article is cosummately heretical and ought to be stricken from Gloria.tv forthwith!
This incorrect use of language in this article, leading to theological difficulties, therefore renders this article quite dubious indeed. Was this article composed by a Roman Catholic. Ergo, I must enquire, is the composer of this article Eastern Orthodox? No he is not, he is a convert from the Church of England and therefore this might explain the aforementioned careless language.
If the aforementioned problem in the language of this article is an error on the part of the composer, one hopes that Gloria.tv would seek out this fellow and endeavour to correct his mistake. On the other hand, if he means to say what he said, i.e. that Our Lady died and was resurrected, this article is cosummately heretical and ought to be stricken from Gloria.tv forthwith!