Death of the Virgin Mary

[MilesVitae]

There is a discussion going on in another forum about the beliefs of Catholics regarding the death and assumption of Mary.
I have always understood that the question of whether or not Mary died before being bodily assumed was not defined and was something of an open question for Catholics, on which there were differing opinions. At the same time, more recently it has become more evident to me that the most ancient opinion, and seemingly the prevailing one at a certain point in Church history, was that Mary did indeed die before her body was assumed.
My question is, at this point in the Church, what is the prevailing viewpoint? Is the common opinion that she did not die (which had been my impression for a long time), is it commonly taught that she did or didn't, what is the opinion of the hierarchy, what's the history of the opinion that she didn't die, etc?

 

[Davidnic]

I was taught in Catholic School and the seminary that, although both views are allowable, she did indeed die. The view more consistent with Tradition is that she died. Or Fell Asleep in the Lord as it has been put.

That Mary Suffered Temporal death is a matter of common teaching. In Dogmatic manuals it is taught that she died. That Mary died is bene fundata..well founded and accepted. The concept that she did not die is sententia tolerata, which is weakly founded but tolerated. By far the opinion of the Early Church and always is that she died.

But it is so weakly founded that I can not, and never could while studying theology, see the argument for her not dying. And in fact I would do so far as to say the opinion that she did not die does present theological complications that are fairly serious. So although it is sententia tolerata at this point...it is really weak in the face of the much stronger view of her natural death.



Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)

Even if reliable historical reports as to the place (Ephesus, Jerusalem), the time, and the circumstances of Mary’s death are lacking, still the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is expressly affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church.

The Sacramentarium Gregorianum, which Pope Hadrian I transmitted to Charles the Great (784/ 91), contains the prayer: Veneranda nobis, Domine, huius est diei festi vitas, in qua sancta Dei Genitrix mortem subiit temporalem, nec tamen mortis nexibus deprimi potuit quae Filium tuum Dominum nostrum de se genuit incarnatum. The “Oratio super oblata” of the same Sacramentary reads: Subveniat, Domine, plebi tuae Dei Genitricis oratio, quam etsi pro condicione carnis migrasse cognoscimus in caelesti gloria apud te pro nobis intercedere sentiamus. Origen (In Ioan 2, 12; fragm. 31), St. Ephrem (Hymnus 15, 2), Severian of Gabala (De mundi creatione or. 6, 10)

St. Jerome (Adv. Rut. 11, 5). St. Augustine (In Ioan tr. 8, 9) mention the fact of her death incidentally St. Epiphanius, who had already instituted researches into the close of Mary’s life says: “Nobody knows how she departed this world.” He leaves undecided whether she died a natural death, or whether (according to Luke 2, 35) she died by violence, or whether she (cf. Apoc. 12, 14) still lives on immortal in some place unknown to us (Haer 78, 11. 24). The unknown author of a sermon which has come down to us under the name of the Presbyte Timotheus of Jerusalem (6th-8th cent.) is of the opinion that “the virgin is up to now immortal (that is, did not die), as He who (in her) lived, translated her into the place of reception (that is, into the Heavenly Paradise)” (Or. in Symeonem).

For Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin (cf. D 1073). However, it seems fitting that Mary’s body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death.

Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Kindle Locations 5971-5987). The Mercier Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Davidnic]

576. The Assumption.

The last matter that we hall notice is the mystery of the Assumption of our Lady. Nothing more strongly indicates the deep conviction of the Christian people that peculiar privileges might be looked for in the case of the Mother of God, than the doubt felt at one time whether she ever died. Even so learned a man as St. Epiphanius, writing about the year 400, hesitates to speak positively: "I cannot say that she is immortal, I cannot feel sure that she is dead." (Haer. 78, n. 11; P.G. 42, 716.) The existence of the doubt at least proves that no relics of her sacred body were known to exist; but the doubt itself was groundless, for it has no positive basis, and it is against all analogy that the Mother should be allowed a privilege which the Son did not take to Himself. There can be no question, therefore, but that the Blessed Virgin died, yet nothing whatever is known as to the date or place of her death; there are divers traditions, none, however, having much authority.

Hunter, Sylvester Joseph. OUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY: (Complete in Three Volumes) (p. 538). Lex De Leon Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Here again we have a dogmatic manual strongly teaching the death of Our Lady. This is what the Church has long taught. This one states it very strongly as groundless and having no positive basis that we would believe she did not die.

 

[Davidnic]

Another

§ 215.— Mary's Death, Incorruptibility, and Assumption into Heaven.


II. That Mary underwent death is a universal belief in the Church. Yet her death is less certain than her glorification. For this latter admits of positive proof from revelation, whereas the former cannot be proved convincingly either from history or revelation. In fact, the law of death as revealed only punishes fallen mankind; but Mary was exempted from original sin, therefore also from its penalty, death. Again, her death cannot be proved as a consequence of her mortal nature, for in her case the claim of nature is superseded by a supernatural claim to immortality. The same would have been true of Adam, had he not sinned. Mary's claim to a life unbroken by death rests upon her Divine Motherhood; but as she is the Mother of Him who died for us, it was fitting that she should die also, lest her and her Son's human natures should be thought unreal, and the Mother privileged above the Son. Mary, then, died because Jesus died; but her death was not necessarily the effect of violence— it being undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as the effect of disease from which, like Jesus, she was exempt. Since the Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of Love, her great desire to be united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them. Her "passing away" is a sacrifice of Love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her life; it is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die.

Scheeben, Matthias Joseph. A MANUAL OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY: Based on Dogmatik (Complete in Two Volumes) (Kindle Locations 11263-11278). Lex De Leon Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

[Rhamiel]

it is my understanding that most Eastern sources say she did die

but the Latin Tradition had it more that she did not die

as of now, I think the view that our Lady did die is more popular, but not authoritative


not to be rude or side track, but I see this as a symptom of Latin Catholics not respecting their own traditions (small t traditions) and trying to be overly accommodating to Eastern traditions
the pendulum swings, for a long time the Latin Church tried to suppress more Eastern traditions leading to "latinization" in some Eastern Catholic churches
this was a shameful and disrespectful thing
now to show we are sorry we bend over backwards.....

 

[Davidnic]

Actually there's only a small body of thought that ever thought she didn't die. Two of the main Latin sources teach her death.

And the dogmatic manuals I site are post Vatican I pre Vatican II and they treat the concept of her not dying as very remote and weakly founed.

 

[dzheremi]

Why is the belief that she did not die allowed if there is basically no foundation for it, as per the referenced sources?

 

[MilesVitae]

Why is the belief that she did not die allowed if there is basically no foundation for it, as per the referenced sources?

Is it allowed in the sense that Church teaching explicitly affirms "She may have died, she may not have," or only in the sense that her death has never been made dogmatic and treated as a matter of faith (with the alternative a heresy)?

 

[Davidnic]

Why is the belief that she did not die allowed if there is basically no foundation for it, as per the referenced sources?

My best answer for that is that it is been allowed as theological speculation because of the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin. Some have postulated it because of those two things she did not have to die.

Now no theology teacher I have ever met would teach that. There are one or two old sources that because of the lack of a body did theorize a counter-proposal to death.

But it was always held as very weakly founded compared to the sources that indicate a death.

it developed a kind of Folk and kids classroom popularity to think that Mary didn't die. And the Church hasn't declared it is counter to teaching because you can't prove she did and some old sources did postulate it. But the Church also maintains that no one has ever given a remotely satisfactory explanation of why she would be Exempted from Death when Christ did not exempt Himself.

 

[Davidnic]

Is it allowed in the sense that Church teaching explicitly affirms "She may have died, she may not have," or only in the sense that her death has never been made dogmatic and treated as a matter of faith (with the alternative a heresy)?

Well it depends what you mean by dogmatic. That she died has never be taught De Fide. As far as grade of certainty it is common teaching well founded that she died and common teaching tolerated opinion that she did not.

sententia communis (common teaching)
Grades of that:

well-founded (bene fundata)
more probable (sententia probabilis)
probable (probabilior)
pious opinions (sententia pia)
tolerated opinions (opinio tolerata)

So it is the highest grade of common teaching that she died.

The best way to put it is that we believe that it is well founded that Our Lady died. You may have the opinion that she did not as long as the reasons for that do not contradict Dogma.

All tolerated opinions and Pius opinions must be looked at for why they are held. A well founded one does not contradict Dogma so it can be held freely. But the last two can be held only if it is for reasons that do not oppose dogma. I have yet to hear an opinion that Our Lady did not die that is not very shaky compared to that she died.

 

[Davidnic]

Why is the belief that she did not die allowed if there is basically no foundation for it, as per the referenced sources?

Let me add one thing, it is mainly from Presbyte Timotheus of Jerusalem that we get the did not die theory. Some before this homily left it open as an unknown. But I find this...in light of Augustine and Jerome to be a weak counterpoint to believing that she died. Pope Adrian I taught a temporal death. As did many others.

The part where many Catholics get off on this is that if Mary did not sin she could not die. I think this is again, where over analysis of a Mystery gets people stuck. And frankly, if St. Augustine did not over analyze it and agreed with death we should too.

 

[MilesVitae]

David,

Is the prevailing theological opinion that death was the natural occurrence for Mary, or that, though she would not have otherwise died (being immaculate), God willed it and she accepted it so that she might be more conformed to Christ (a theory I have heard from a couple sources)?

 

[Davidnic]

For reference the work by Timothy of Jerusalem is the "Homily on Simeon and Anna". But that is the strongest case for non-death. And even in the Gregorian Sacramentary her death is specifically mentioned. So it was never a popular opinion that she did not die, but it somehow got to school children at some point in the 1700's and had a kind of later modern push.

 

[Davidnic]

David,

Is the prevailing theological opinion that death was the natural occurrence for Mary, or that, though she would not have otherwise died (being immaculate), God willed it and she accepted it so that she might be more conformed to Christ (a theory I have heard from a couple sources)?

Up in the air really but to reconcile it to the IC and Original Sin it is held that God willed it and she accepted because she reflects her Son as a Mirror of justice. So the prevailing theory for Catholics is that God willed the death. But it is acceptable to say that her body was mortal. The Dogma of the Assumption requires we believe she completed the course of her mortal life. In it there is room for mystery for us to say we do not know. Most professors I have studied with have agreed with the Dogmatic Manual above: "Since the Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of Love, her great desire to be united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them. Her "passing away" is a sacrifice of Love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her life; it is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die."

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I guess this begs the question, with Mary's stated role in the church, why is there not any written 1'st hand account of her death?

Was Mary viewed as the hand maiden of the Lord or did the body view her as the Madonna as we currently view her?

 

[Davidnic]

There is a non- Scriptural account of her Dormition. And it tracks fairly well what was taught by the early church fathers.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

There is a non- Scriptural apocryphal account of her Dormition. And it tracks fairly well what was taught by the early church fathers.

Would this be online David?

 

[Davidnic]

Would this be online David?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

St. Gregory of Tours cited in earlier work now lost

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

St. Gregory of Tours cited in earlier work now lost

Thanks David!

 

[Davidnic]

This conversation has peaked my interest in some things. I just ordered from the library a book about it that looks fairly promising

https://www.worldcat.org/title/anci...ssumption/oclc/50101584&referer=brief_results