Assumption of Mary and dogmatic statement

[OpenDoor]

For those who are unaware the Assumption of Mary is a belief held by the RCC which teaches that Mary was bodily assumed (taken up) to Heaven.

One of the issues of debate among Roman Catholic regarding this teaching, is the question of whether or not Mary was alive or dead at the time of the assumption.

This is because of the dogmatic teaching, "having completed the course of her (Mary) earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The "having completed the course of her earthly life" statement (according to Catholics) leaves open the debate to whether Mary was alive or not.

The statement "having completed the course of her earthly life", was said by Pope Pius XII during the Munificentissimus Deus Nov 1, 1950 when he dogmatically declared the Assumption of Mary.

My question is, if Catholics were unsure of the meaning of "having completed the course of her earthly life", why didn't anyone ask?

Admittedly, I don't entirely understand how Papal Infallibility works but I have been told by Catholics that it is not a form of prophecy, or a vision, etc. So I would think that Pope Pius XII would know what he was talking about.

So why not ask? Did anyone ask? He did not die until Oct 9, 1958 (eight years later) so there was time to ask.

One possibility that I can think of (do to my admitted lack of understanding on Papal Infallibility) is that a pope does not remember what they said after speaking infallibly. However, like I said before I do not think that is how Papal Infallibility works.

Does anyone know anything on the subject and this specific issue?

 

[Catherineanne]

For those who are unaware the Assumption of Mary is a belief held by the RCC which teaches that Mary was bodily assumed (taken up) to Heaven.

One of the issues of debates among Roman Catholic regarding this teaching, is the question of whether or not Mary was alive or dead at the time of the assumption.

This is because of the dogmatic teaching, "having completed the course of her (Mary) earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The "having completed the course of her earthly life" statement (according to Catholics) leaves open the debate to whether Mary was alive or not.

The statement "having completed the course of her earthly life", was said by Pope Pius XII during the Munificentissimus Deus Nov 1, 1950 when he dogmatically declared the Assumption of Mary.

My question is, if Catholics were unsure of the meaning of "having completed the course of her earthly life", why didn't anyone ask?

Admittedly, I don't entirely understand how Papal Infallibility works but I have been told by Catholics that it is not a form of prophecy, or a vision, etc. So I would think that Pope Pius XII would know what he was talking about.

So why not ask? Did anyone ask? He did not die until Oct 9, 1958 (eight years later) so there was time to ask.

One possibility that I can think of (do to my admitted lack of understanding on Papal Infallibility) is that a pope does not remember what they said after speaking infallibly. However, like I said before I do not think that is how Papal Infallibility works.

Does anyone know anything on the subject?

As I understand it, it is the longstanding tradition of the Orthodox church that the Theotokos died as we all do, but that shortly after her death (within a few days) her body was assumed into heaven together with her soul. Her tomb was found to be empty, the same as that of the Lord.

In making a dogmatic statement about this, the Pope chose not to disagree with the Orthodox Church. However, he left open the question of whether Our Lady died or not before her assumption, because some Roman Catholics believe that she did not; that she drew near to the end of her mortal life, and was assumed before that end into heaven. I think the argument is that God would not have allowed Our Lady to die. The counter argument is that Our Lady herself wanted to suffer all that her son had suffered before entering eternity; she was offered assumption from life but chose to die first.

The dogma as it stands prevents either side being placed in a position of disagreement with Rome. In which case the Pope was most sensible to leave it as it is. Subsequent Popes confirm this by also leaving it as it is.

Fwiw, I go with the Orthodox position, because it is the one with the oldest tradition. I do not think the Anglican church has an official view on it, however.

 

[OpenDoor]

In making a dogmatic statement about this, the Pope chose not to disagree with the Orthodox Church. However, he left open the question of whether Our Lady died or not before her assumption, because some Roman Catholics believe that she did not; that she drew near to the end of her mortal life, and was assumed before that end into heaven.

But when the Pope said "having completed the course of her earthly life". He knew what he meant by that, right?

Like if I said, "Jim went inside to get it." I know what the "it" is referring to. Even if what I said was unspecific.

 

[Catherineanne]

But when the Pope said "having completed the course of her earthly life". He knew what he meant by that, right?

Like if I said, "Jim went inside to get it." I know what the "it" is referring to. Even if what I said was unspecific.

I think the Pope knew perfectly well that he was not being specific. As I understand it he changed the words of his statement beforehand, from 'having died' on the request of one of his advisors. And he did it to prevent being dogmatic on this particular point.

As a result Roman Catholics are free to believe either that Our Lady died or that she did not. They are not constrained by the Pope's teaching on this point.

I think you may be assuming that the Pope did not know he was being vague. Of course he knew; sometimes people make a deliberate choice to be vague and this is one of those times.

 

[OpenDoor]

I think the Pope knew perfectly well that he was not being specific. As I understand it he changed the words of his statement beforehand, from 'having died' on the request of one of his advisors. And he did it to prevent being dogmatic on this particular point.

As a result Roman Catholics are free to believe either that Our Lady died or that she did not. They are not constrained by the Pope's teaching on this point.

I think you may be assuming that the Pope did not know he was being vague. Of course he knew; sometimes people make a deliberate choice to be vague and this is one of those times.

So from a Catholics prospective (I know you are not Roman Catholic) why would a pope hold back truth?

 

[Catherineanne]

So from a Catholics prospective (I know you are not Roman Catholic) why would a pope hold back truth?

He didn't. He stated dogmatically as much of the truth as he could in all conscience state dogmatically. If he had known 100% for certain either way, he would have said so.

In other words, he found that there was room for doubt, so he left that doubt in place.

 

[OpenDoor]

He didn't. He stated dogmatically as much of the truth as he could in all conscience state dogmatically. If he had known 100% for certain either way, he would have said so.

In other words, he found that there was room for doubt, so he left that doubt in place.

This is where I am getting confused. When a pope speaks infallibility he knows what he is saying, right?

If yes, then he would know what he meant by his statement. For him there was no room for debate because he knew what he was saying.

Unless I am missing something...

EDIT - Please let me know if what I am saying is making sense.

 

[Ave Maria]

The question is open to debate. My own personal belief is that she was assumed into Heaven at the moment of her death and not before or afterwards.

 

[Rhamiel]

This is where I am getting confused. When a pope speaks infallibility he knows what he is saying, right?

If yes, then he would know what he meant by his statement. For him there was no room for debate because he knew what he was saying.

Unless I am missing something...

EDIT - Please let me know if what I am saying is making sense.

he did not hold back the truth

it is like this, it is not like the Pope just goes into a trance and utters prophecies when he speaks Ex Cathedra

rather he is defining a teaching of the Church, so he takes into account the theology and the views that the Church has preached.
we believe that God will protect the teachings of the Church
I normally compare this to when St.Paul was writting his letters to the differant churches, these letters show Pauls own learning and personality, but at the same time we believe that they were allso inspired by God
so too with the ex catherdra statements
and as an act of insperation from the Holy Spirit

anyways I feel like I am getting off topic
the debate over the assumption of Mary is more allong the lines of what "sleep" means, sleep is a metaphore for death, but it could allso be ment as a coma or something
it was the end of her earthly life either way

 

[Standing Up]

I think the Pope knew perfectly well that he was not being specific. As I understand it he changed the words of his statement beforehand, from 'having died' on the request of one of his advisors. And he did it to prevent being dogmatic on this particular point.

As a result Roman Catholics are free to believe either that Our Lady died or that she did not. They are not constrained by the Pope's teaching on this point.

I think you may be assuming that the Pope did not know he was being vague. Of course he knew; sometimes people make a deliberate choice to be vague and this is one of those times.

Most likely he was offering a nod to EO in his nonspecificity. IOW, had he said it one way, the EO wouldn't like it. Had he said it another way, RC wouldn't like it. He split it down the middle and both sides were happy.

 

[Rhamiel]

Most likely he was offering a nod to EO in his nonspecificity. IOW, had he said it one way, the EO wouldn't like it. Had he said it another way, RC wouldn't like it. He split it down the middle and both sides were happy.

not just the EO
there are allso Eastern Rite Catholics
who keep the traditions of the East, but are in full communion with the Pope

 

[Standing Up]

not just the EO
there are allso Eastern Rite Catholics
who keep the traditions of the East, but are in full communion with the Pope

Did the pope make his statement before or after Vatican II about the thread issue (assumption of Mary)?

 

[Rhamiel]

Did the pope make his statement before or after Vatican II about the thread issue (assumption of Mary)?

12 years before the Vatican II

 

[Standing Up]

12 years before the Vatican II

Interesting, eh? Forces at work behind the scenes for ecumenicanism (sic?). They knew it was a tricky dogma to get the wording right.

 

[Rhamiel]

Interesting, eh? Forces at work behind the scenes for ecumenicanism (sic?). They knew it was a tricky dogma to get the wording right.

not really, the Latin Church had allways leaned towards the idea that Mary was still alive when she was assumed
the Eastern Church, with the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches being in communion with Rome before Vatican II, leaned more towards the idea that she died first
it makes sense that both sides would be represented

even though this as made a Dogma in the 1950, this is a very old teaching of the Church

i mean ofcourse focus was put on the wording
but when you talk about important things, you should allways be careful of wording

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I am leaning towards accepting this doctrine. But still have some hesitation on it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Most likely he was offering a nod to EO in his nonspecificity. IOW, had he said it one way, the EO wouldn't like it. Had he said it another way, RC wouldn't like it. He split it down the middle and both sides were happy.

I am leaning towards accepting this doctrine. But still have some hesitation on it.

I'm on the fence with this as well. In Confessional Lutheranism, the Church considers this "Adiaphora"; as such, our membership is free regarding this belief. My Parish celebrates this day as the "Dormation of Mary"; works for me.

 

[MamaZ]

I am not even considering this doctrine. Why would Mary be assumed into heaven?

 

[Rhamiel]

I am not even considering this doctrine. Why would Mary be assumed into heaven?

why would a chariot of fire come down and take Elijah to heaven?

 

[MamaZ]

why would a chariot of fire come down and take Elijah to heaven?

We read about this in scripture. But nothing about the assumption of Mary is in the scripture. I guess it is a tradition but one that cannot be proven with Gods own written word. Elijah was taken for a reason. There were two actually taken. Kind of like the rapture.