Question For All You Eastern Orthodox

[Rowan]

For the Orthodox Church the Assumption has never been made a dogma.

That does not mean it is not Tradition.

We believe that she died / fell asleep in the Lord (hence Dormition) and then essentially experienced the Resurrection (though, as I said, this has never been made a dogma).

...And that's all the Assumption is, which is why I did a double take when people said we don't believe this. Looks like we just got our wires crossed.

Catholics believed she died before she was assumed as well. A few don't, but that's their version of "theologumen".

 

[ikonographics]

That does not mean it is not Tradition.


...And that's all the Assumption is, which is why I did a double take when people said we don't believe this. Looks like we just got our wires crossed.

Catholics believed she died before she was assumed as well. A few don't, but that's their version of "theologumen".

Yes, it is the Orthodox Tradition that the Mother of God died and was translated to heaven.

The catholic wording of the Dogma is very fuzzy and leaves open the possibility that she did not die.

"In this dogmatic statement, the phrase "having completed the course of her earthly life," leaves open the question of whether the Virgin Mary died before her Assumption, or, whether she was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary)


It is not just a matter of crossed wires. Fuzzy dogmas = fuzzy theology = fuzzy Christology = fuzzy salvation.The problem is with the consequences of the dogmas. For the Orthodox Church Dogmas are not "statements of faith" but our way of life/ existence in relationship to God. That is why adding or taking away from the dogmas affects how we relate to God and our salvation. Orthodox Theology does not have "Mariology." What we believe about the Mother of God belongs in Christology. The consequence of the dogma of the Immaculate conception is that Mary did not share our human nature (as she was exempt from what the rest of humanity had and is separate from the human race) Therefore Christ has not assumed our human nature and we are not saved. The other consequence, as I mentioned,is that she could not die. Whether the Mother of God could die or not is not a theologoumenon in the Orthodox Church. Again, if she could not die, she was not human ( and all the consequences that come from that...) The problem is that for the Latin church the theologoumenon is whether she died or not, and not whether she was assumed to heaven.

 

[Rhamiel]

some Catholics think she died and went to heaven others think she just went into a deep sleep and was assumed, arguments could be made for both from logic and theology

 

[Rhamiel]

The consequence of the dogma of the Immaculate conception is that Mary did not share our human nature (as she was exempt from what the rest of humanity had and is separate from the human race) Therefore Christ has not assumed our human nature and we are not saved. The other consequence, as I mentioned,is that she could not die. Whether the Mother of God could die or not is not a theologoumenon in the Orthodox Church. Again, if she could not die, she was not human ( and all the consequences that come from that...) The problem is that for the Latin church the theologoumenon is whether she died or not, and not whether she was assumed to heaven.

wow, so much stuff, so because Christ did not sin He did not share in our human nature? Adam before the Fall was not human because he could not die? who says Mary "could" not die the view that Mary was assumed into Heaven before death could mean that or it could just be viewed as just another thing sprining from the Grace of God, as all things flow from Him

 

[ikonographics]

wow, so much stuff, so because Christ did not sin He did not share in our human nature? Adam before the Fall was not human because he could not die? who says Mary "could" not die the view that Mary was assumed into Heaven before death could mean that or it could just be viewed as just another thing sprining from the Grace of God, as all things flow from Him

That is just the tip of the iceberg People usually look superficially at the differences between Orthodoxy and RC without digging deeper...and when one starts digging one discovers enormous differences. While I know that answering the questions you ask above may seem OT, for Orthodox theology everything is seen as a whole and one cannot separate theology into "logical" compartments. Everything is interconnected. As I mentioned before"Mariology" is for us part of Christology. What I will state below is simply the EO point of view.

1) Regarding the sinlessness of Christ's human nature. Christ's humanity was sinless, not because He could have sinned but chose not to. It is not an ethical "sinlessness". (Christ is not an ethical role model - the world has plenty of them. He came to unite God and man ontologically, not ethically). Christ is sinless because His human nature is united to His divine nature and is deified as a result of this union. It is not that His human nature of itself cannot sin, but because its union with the divine nature that it cannot sin. This is how Christ heals our human nature from the sickness of sin and its consequences which are corruption and death. And this is why the purpose of our lives is to attain theosis/deification. Just as Christ's humanity was deified (in His case at the moment of conception) by union with his divine nature so our human nature is healed and deified when we unite ourselves to Christ. This is a process that begins in this lifetime and never ends.

2) Only God who is uncreated is immortal. Adam was created with the possibility of immortality, he was not immortal by nature because he was created. Adam had the possibility of being "immortal" only if he remained in communion with God, Who is the source of life. Being created (that is being brought "from non-existence into being") means that if Adam chose to break off his communion and distance himself from God (=sin) he would return towards non-existance and suffer spiritual and physical death (except that out of His love God does not allow his creatures to return to non-existence). The idea of the "immortality of the soul" is platonic and infiltrated Western theology via Augustine.

3) Since the time of the Apostles, the Church has believed that the Mother of God died and was buried in Gethsemane and that her body was translated/assumed to heaven. The dogma of the Assumption with the fuzzy area about her not dying appeared in 1950 and was in essence the consequence of the Dogma of the Immaculate conception that appeared for the first time in 1854 and is something that was never taught by the Fathers of the Church for all the reasons I've already mentioned.

 

[prodromos]

some Catholics think she died and went to heaven others think she just went into a deep sleep and was assumed, arguments could be made for both from logic and theology

But not from Tradition.

John

 

[prodromos]

wow, so much stuff, so because Christ did not sin He did not share in our human nature? Adam before the Fall was not human because he could not die? who says Mary "could" not die the view that Mary was assumed into Heaven before death could mean that or it could just be viewed as just another thing sprining from the Grace of God, as all things flow from Him

Rhamiel, please respond to what Julia actually wrote and NOT a caricature of her post. The above is pure straw.

If Christ did not take on "our" human flesh when He was conceived of Mary, but somehow the flesh of Adam before the fall, then it was not our fallen flesh which was taken to Hades and raised to new life, but rather the unfallen flesh which was in no need of redemption. Thus only Mary's flesh is taken through Hades, raised to life and glorified. The rest of humanity is still a slave to death.

John

 

[Philothei]

We do believe she was assumed to heaven we tend not to "theologize" or "rationalize" it as it is a miracle and yes I agree with Prodromos it is Tradition we "trust" not through logic or theology...for they are both inferior to God.

As some father said (memory does not serve me right now ...either St Gregory of Nyssa or St. Basil) "wherever God wills he conquers the law of nature" ....Thus God "intereres" in the natural law vivid example the incarnation.

 

[Rowan]

It is not just a matter of crossed wires.

I meant between me and whoever said Orthodoxy didn't teach that the Mother of God was assumed into heaven. We took "assumed" to mean two totally different circumstances.

As for the rest: Yes. I get it. *points to three-barred cross under username*

edit - *It was then that she noticed it wasn't there, then scurried away to change that...*

 

[ikonographics]

I meant between me and whoever said Orthodoxy didn't teach that the Mother of God was assumed into heaven. We took "assumed" to mean two totally different circumstances.

Looks like we got our wires a little crossed
As for the rest: Yes. I get it. *points to three-barred cross under username*

What I said was more for "general consumption" than specifically directed at you to clear up where the difference in our understanding is.

edit - *It was then that she noticed it wasn't there, then scurried away to change that...*

God bless!