Talk:Assumption of Mary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Meaning

This entry defines what the term "Assumption of Mary" means, but does not explain its origins or history. Although dogmatically defined in 1950, we know that this ex cathedra statement of Papal infallibility requires that "his teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously." So, where did it really come from originally? Who first spoke of this concept?

I concur with the above remarks. Anyone who knows how to use the internet will see that this entry is inadequate.

Yes, a historical account is needed. Paul B 07:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

dogma and controversy

The Church repeatedly uses dogmatic declarations to settle spirtitual and loving controversies; these help us to think of Mary: Nicene Creed (Arian controversy), Council of Trent (Protestant controversy), etc. Was there a controversy about Mary's assumption that the Pope settled? The text is really vague: "Theological debate about the assumption continued until 1950 when it was defined as definitive doctrine." Was there particular controversy before 1950 that motivated the promulgation of doctrine? Jonathan Tweet 15:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Declaration

For some reason, Pius's Declaration is given in full twice at the moment; this is, obviously, unnecessary and interrupts the flow of the article. Unless there is some reason currently hidden for this duplication, I will remove it. If I am mistaken, feel free to revert me. Cheers, Lindsay 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to lead etc.

I have made a few changes, including the first sentence of the lead. WP policy states that the lead should start with a sentence including the title name and explaining the notability of the subject. I have added this. It also stresses the fact that this is an ecumenical article on the subject and not only about the Catholic viewpoint. I also added a more comprehensive list of countries celebrating August 15th with a public holiday. Xandar 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact tag requested

Hi. I'm just wondering about this line I found in the first section of this article, "According to Catholic theology, Mary is the pledge of the fulfillment of Christ's promise." Can we get a CITATION NEEDED stamp on that sentence? User:rtadopaw, Andrew B 10:39a PDT, 12 March, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtadopaw (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. When you see a claim that needs sourcing, you can type {{subst:dated|fact}} next to it. —Angr 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's taken from JP2's homily. I've moved the reference to the appropriate place. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Top-importance Christianity articles

I am removing the Christianity "importance=top" rating.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on the talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ascension?

This article contains the text "The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary ..." The use of the word "ascension" is at odds with other Christian ideology, in which the only entity to have gone bodily to Heaven under the entity's own power ("ascending" is the English word chosen to refer to that) is Christ. All other entities who went bodily to Heaven did so not by their own propulsive power but, rather, by Heaven's attractive-power, and the English term chosen to refer to that is "being assumed", not "ascending". However, the correction to "assumption" may not be the correct remedy. The text is a quotation from Ludwig Ott. If these are Ott's exact words then a "[sic]" should be added after the word "ascension". If Ott's words are in German then please check and see if a translator, not Ott, made the ascension/assumption mistake. 69.86.126.190 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Christopher L. Simpson

I don't have "the Ott" at hand but I can't remember from reading that he used Latin there, which would be unmotivated. In German both Assumption and Ascension are in popular language Himmelfahrt, though officially the term Aufnahme in den Himmel has been stressed theologically. It might even be that Ott wrote Aufnahme himself; I'm quite certain he didn't write "ascensio". --84.154.99.240 (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you made a good edit. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with rationale and edit. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Episcopal's church view on Mary

There possble could be error in this section, because they episcopal/anglican churches agree with sinlessness of Mary, and with her body and soul being taken into heaven. This is half right and needs to be better researched. They said there is some bibical view within it, but did not say all anglican would agree with it. So this is wrong and please let thrid person view on this topic. I would be wrong, but I think right after reading it.(~~)

Question: In the Episcopal Church, August 15 is observed as the commemoration "Of the Blessed Virgin Mary", and the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic agreed statement on the Virgin Mary assigns a place for both the Dormition and the Assumption in Anglican devotion.

Is there any truth to this ? I have the book on this and I got idal Mary will be view more, but the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are still in limbo for the episcoplian/anglican. Would you agree with my statement or this other person who did on wikipedia? I agree with you.

I'm sure there are a few Anglican congregations celebrating these feasts, but they are not in our official calendar. Faithfully, Clay Morris The Rev. Dr. Clayton L. Morris Office for Liturgy and MusicIrishmonk 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am an Anglican and BOTH holidays are celebrated at my church with the utmost seriousness. After Christological holidays they are the highest ones on the calendar - not mere saint days, something VERY special. I don't know that this is the norm in the communion, but I am sure we are not the only ones who behave in this manner. I will look at the artical and add what I can.- SECisek 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The days are a greater festivle in High-Church and Anglo-Catholic Parishes, a lesser festivle in the Broad-Church Parishes, and some Low-Church parishes celebrate it while others do not. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Catholics not in communion with Rome

Do Old Catholics, Independent Catholics, Liberal Catholics, the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the African Orthodox Church, the Apostolic Catholic Church, Lusitanian Orthodox Church, Philippine Independent Church, and any other Catholic Churches not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church celebrate the Assumption of Mary? I know that Old Catholics deny Papal Infallibility, but do they also deny the Assumption, or just that it is dogma? I think if any of these churches celebrate the holiday it would be important to include in the article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know, but the answers may be here: The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption by Stephen J. Shoemaker 2006 ISBN 0199210748 if you want to look. Yet those groups are so small in number that I do not see this as a key to teh article's quality. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The dogma of the Assumption

I was raised a Catholic, and I understand the importance of church history and tradition, but how can this dogma exist with zero documentary evidence to support it for over 3 centuries after Jesus's crucifiction? Calling this "dogma" only puts into question the, for me, incontrovertible dogma of Jesus's bodily resurrection. Don't mix up this Assumpton issue with truly fundamental Christian dogma like the resurrection. There is no comparison in terms of textual evidence.Vertex11 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertex11 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I was raised a Catholic too ! and I believe the Holy Mother went up. up, body and Soul to heaven.Never mind Dogma you should Know Mary's Canticle, " My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit finds joy in God my savior. For he has looked upon his servant in her lowliness.all ages to come shall call me blessed.God who is mighty has done great things for me,holy is his name,His mercy is from age to age on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has confused in their inmost thoughts . He has disposed the mighty from their thrones and raised the lowly to high places. The hungry he has given every good thing,while the rich he has sent empty away. He has upheld Israel his servant,ever mindful of his mercy: Even as he promised our fathers,promised Abraham and his descendents forever. Luke 1. 40-55 and when our Lady went up I guess she said pray for yourselves ! (four tildes)65.92.98.29 (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 15 August, 2011 6:20 a,m,

Hi. I'm a Catholic, but of the more broad-minded variety. The idea behind the proclamation of the dogma by Pius XII was that, since the generality of Catholics believed in the Assumption of Mary since the year dot, they must have believed in something that was passed down by the Apostles of Jesus. There are other reasons behind it too, connected with the idea of the Immaculate Conception, that is, the idea that Mary was preserved from original sin. Original Sin was the cause of death. If Mary did not have original sin, then she could not die. Though she could choose to die, as Jesus did, in imitation of her son, and be resurrected, as he was. Cheers. --Gazzster 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a factual error on this page. The Lutheran Church does not teach or believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. Nor does the Lutheran Church believe that Mary was without sin. Martin Luther stated that Mary was unique because God chose her to give birth to his Son, but in every other way she was just like the rest of us sinners dependent of God's grace. All of the Lutheran Confessional Documents found in the Book of Concord and other historical documents agree on these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.122.20 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen sources that say certain Lutheran churches teach that Mary was indeed eather Immaculately Conceived or spared from sin. And the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church even goes so far to agree with Papal infallibility. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The argument above is somewhat incorrect, as the Blessed Virgin did actually die (though that is not de fide). However, even, I believe it was St. Augustine (I read it in a citation of St. Thomas's) concludes somewhere, seemingly with surprise, that "not everything seems in the Bible, since even Mary's assumption is not in the Bible". We may however find it in the idea of "the Lord exalts the lowest" in the Blessed Virgin's own prophetical Magnificat, or even the commandment "Honor your [...] mother" that the Lord himself fulfilled, all the more since the Blessed Virgin was worthy of this Honour. --77.4.118.194 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument is not incorrect, as the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion teach that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not die, but was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven. The Orthodox churches, however, do teach the Dormition of the Theotokos, or that Mary did die and then was assumed body and soul into heaven. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, here it is you that are incorrect, sorry to say so. The Orthodox teach the Dormition and the Catholic Church has done so too in its liturgy in the 9th century, and though this liturgy is not present, its teaching has never been retracted and should thus be still considered the official teaching of the Church. Nor does it contradict the Dogma of the Assumption, which only says that the Blessed Virgin was either (possibly with the infallible dogmatic formulation, but thus rather contrary to ordinary Church doctrine) assumed without death or, and this seems to be Church doctrine, was assumed quite soon though possibly with some "three days intermediate" that could be explained as hindering any way of surpassing Our Lord's glory. -- I correct myself. The Easterners celebrate Dormition on the 14th afaik and if this were the case, we'd rather celebrate assumption on the 16th. after her death in body and soul, as opposed to the "ordinary" glory of the blessed before the Last Day, a priviledge that she shares with some* but is far from generality, but which, after the Last Day, all the Blessed will have equally. [*"Some" is of course our Most Holy Redeemer in His human nature, that's the doctrine of the Ascension, and maybe only Him. It was however a pious belief of the Middle Ages that it includes St. John the Evangelist, a pious belief of the Opus Dei Founder that it includes St. Joseph, and some speculation that it includes at least some of the departed of the Old Covenant which "appeared to many", as recorded in the Gospels.] A rumour has it that Pius XII. was not far from unconscientously con-dogmatising the Dormition, when somebody told him to have received a Marian apparition about not to do so. That he didn't in fact doesn't, on the other hand, say that he believed in the respective apparition (an apparition gives no new doctrine), but only that it reminded him what it was precisely he wished to dogmatise. The same--84.154.106.75 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As a practicing Roman Catholic, and of the Traditional kind, the Assumption is dogma in our church, and we do not celebrate the Dorminition. The Catholic Church does not REJECT the Dorminition, but we do not celebrate it either, mainly because most Catholics do not believe Mary died. (Death is caused by sin, and since Catholics believe Mary was sinless (Immaculate Conception) she did not die.) --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Church does not officially say either way, only that she was Assumed. Whether the assumption happen right before she would have died or right after has not been defined. Both options are left up to the person to believe. Different Saints, theologians, and different traditions within the Church maintain either view. All that is required is that a Catholic believe she was Assumed into heaven. The Franciscans even maintain a Tomb of Mary in the Holy Land. There would be no need for a tomb if they didn't believe she died before being assumed. Marauder40 (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It could have been the tomb prepared for Mary, that she never was layed in. But Common catholic belief holds she did not die because she was Immaculate, and death would contradict that dogma. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your understanding of the doctrine. Read the documents. The Church has not explicitly defined if she was assumed before or after a natural death. They specificially left it open either way. The Immaculate Conception doctrine only says she was kept free of original sin, it doesn't say she wasn't going to die. You are drawing a parallel and many theologians have drawn that parallel but there have been many theologians on the other side of the spectrum to. The doctrine of the Assumption only says that she was assumed, it doesn't say before her death and it doesn't say after her death. It is a valid Catholic belief to believe in either scenario. The following addresses both issues and doesn't state either way when the assumption happened. "5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body." Pope Pius XIIMarauder40 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, it is common theology that it is natural for man to die, and that it is a a result from sin is because of the fact that in Paradise, this would have been prevented by the Tree of Life. I think it is even a tolerated opinion to the least that man would have even died in Paradise, and the "death caused by sin that God did not want" so many Scripture verses and dogmas speak of is only the death in the sorrowful form it has now. If we look at the dogma, there is no statement whether Mary died or not. But that, on the other hand, doesn't say it is open to personal belief, only that it isn't part of the dogma; and if previous teaching says she died, this previous teaching is not retracted. And the older liturgies may be not formally teaching documents but are so at least to a degree. Ludwig Ott holds it as the more common, though not certain sentence that Mary did die, and explains that her body was submitted to natural death in conformity with her Son's, though she was not punished for sin. --77.4.59.69 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A good explanation of the Catholic belief on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption is here [6] It says the same thing I did. The Church officially has only defined that Mary was assumed, whether it happened before or after a natural death is left open and hasn't been officially defined. The provided explanation has both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur. Marauder40 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know the official dogma has not said anything about whether she really did die. However, as I was saying, MOST (almost ALL) catholics believe that Mary never died. Because we believe death is caused by sin, so therefore Mary (sinless) did not die. I am just stating a common belief, even if the church has never touched on it. -Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is what you say. But the majority of the theologians of the 1950s and 1960s said the contrary, at least in the perception of Ludwig Ott, who wouldn't otherwise have stated that "Mary underwent temporal death" is a sententia communior. And I don't know of any substantial change in the matter either. Also, it still is the fact that one time, the Church - not just private believers - prayed: "[we celebrate] this day, when the Holy Mother of God underwent temporal death, but could not be hold by the bonds of death she who bore Thy incarnate Son Our Lord." But the Church has never prayed, and I wonder whether even private prayers of the kind have been imprimaturised, anything saying "Christ, who spared his Mother from suffering temporal death, but received her into heaven without dying", or the like.--77.4.59.69 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think by the way that the internet source cited above by you, @Marauder40, is in a certain point, well, untraditional. That is in saying "the doctrine of the Assumption says that at [...] Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her." First, I think the common opinion, though no dogma of course, of the Church fathers was that Enoch and Elijah were not assumed into the same heaven Christ ascended to and Mary was assumed to, but to another place in the presence of God ("None have ascended into heaven", says Christ at a time quite after them), and are still to die being the two witnesses mentioned in the Revelation. --77.4.59.69 (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As to your statement about Enoch and Elijah, I will even give you a link that isn't a Catholic link to explain that one. [7] What is important here is what was and wasn't defined by the doctrine. We can discuss this all we want but as of yet I do not see any proposals for changing the article. Remember, this is not a forum. If you want to discuss this feel free to go to one of the numerous religious forums out there.Marauder40 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misuse of the talk page. However, I don't want, if I may frankly say so, to explain Our Lord's words "from context" unless absolutely necessary. And I remember that St. Thomas Aq. wrote in discussing the transfiguration, quoting Jerome first: "He (Christ) gives a sign from heaven, Elias coming down thence, whither he had ascended." [...] And St. Thomas adds: "Elias appeared in his own body, not that he was brought down from the empyrean heaven, but from some place on high whither he was taken up in the fiery chariot."--77.4.91.211 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, Thomas Aquinas also opposed Immaculate Conception, but later by the 16th century that became open question, then after a few centuries a dogma after sensus fidelium built up. As Willthacheerleader18 said there is some sensus fidelium now, but I think it is anyone's guess as to how much. And as Marauder said, the Church has left the issue open. My suggestion: let the 4 of us get together on this talk page in exactly 250 years from today and discuss it again. Do we have a date? History2007 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me ;) By the way IP user, if you would like a good forum to discuss Catholic things with Catholics (and some non-Catholics) I suggest [8] it is run by Catholic Answers. We can even continue this discussion over there. Marauder40 (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha sounds like a plan to me. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then let us each take an extra multi-vatimin every day, to make the date. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so much, Thomas Aquinas said Mary was sanctified after animated and this is, speaking of the terms, as a matter of fact the case. What was evolved later, and different from the previous teaching of a "sanctification of her unanimated flesh" that ran under the title of Imm. Conc., is the simple fact that the "epsilon", in language of analysis, of time in between could actually be = 0. --77.4.91.211 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

citation #12 broken?

The link referenced by citation #12 is returning error 404 page not found. It links to "http://www.christiantruth.com/assumption.html" It appears the correct web address may be "http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html"? 72.76.134.165 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is broken. That is not a WP:RS website and should not even be used. History2007 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Article name

Names of established articles can only be changed with prior discussion - not at the whim of an editor who prefers another name. I have therefore reverted the recent name change. I cannot at present see any justification for the change based on "full title". Anglicanus (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI HeartyBowl1989 is most probably a User:LoveforMary sock puppet. See his talk page. And your revert was correct. Blessed is by and large a Catholic title. History2007 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Painting!!!

I'm surprised no one has fixed this, but the painting by Murillo shown is actually a depiciton of the Immaculate Conception (in the Escorial Palace outside of Madrid) and NOT the Assumption. Generally, in post-Mediæval art, when Mary's hands are crossed on her bosom it is a depiction of the Immaculate Conception; when her arm is extended out or her hands are folded in prayer it is the Assumption. Miguel (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that art statement please Miguel? I would be interested, for I will add it to the art page, if valid. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, she's standing on the crescent moon, and I thought that was always a sign of the Assumption. —Angr 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me why after all the sex abuse cases, the paintings of naked babies everywhere is not politically incorrect? Can't angels be adults? What it the facination with this in the eyes of Catholics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.233 (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please ask User:Johnbod, for he would know best. Also see Roman Catholic Marian art. History2007 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel is probably right that it is the wrong painting. Please see image above on the right which is the same painting with the Immaculate title. I will use another image now. However, the image above on the left, suggests that the artistic assumption (pun intended) about hands being open or closed is not universally correct. History2007 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the one above right here is an IC - see Roman_Catholic_Marian_art#Depiction_of_the_Immaculate_Conception. The position of the hands is typically as Miguel said, but (as in the one on the left) capable of variations. The crescent moon is usually an attribute of the IC. As the Commons category shows, the Assumption usually includes other figures, either above in heaven or below on earth, or at the least angels. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are over twenty Immaculata paintings by Murillo, starting around 1640. After 1652, he created a number of Immaculatas, in which Mary wears a huge flowing cape as in the picture on the left. This is to symbolize her assumption. I don't think he ever painted an Assunta on her own or with that name. There are a number of Murillo Immaculata exemplars in US museums (Fort Worth, Kimbell Art; Kansas City William Rockhill; Detroit, Institute of Arts;Baltimore, Walters Art)--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mary's holy death

Why does the article state "While Catholic dogma leaves open the question of Mary's death before rising to Heaven"? It is doctrine that Mary died, it is not open for theological debate. From the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary:

Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

Christ's faithful, through the teaching and the leadership of their pastors, have learned from the sacred books that the Virgin Mary, throughout the course of her earthly pilgrimage, led a life troubled by cares, hardships, and sorrows, and that, moreover, what the holy old man Simeon had foretold actually came to pass, that is, that a terribly sharp sword pierced her heart as she stood under the cross of her divine Son, our Redeemer. In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes.

In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded.

"Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.

"...As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."

So it was that the Feast of the Assumption was elevated from the rank which it had occupied from the beginning among the other Marian feasts to be classed among the more solemn celebrations of the entire liturgical cycle. And, when our predecessor St. Sergius I prescribed what is known as the litany, or the stational procession, to be held on four Marian feasts, he specified together the Feasts of the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Dormition of the Virgin Mary.

They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death..."

...and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven.

Thus, during the earliest period of scholastic theology, that most pious man, Amadeus, Bishop of Lausarme, held that the Virgin Mary's flesh had remained incorrupt-for it is wrong to believe that her body has seen corruption-because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned with great glory in the heavenly courts.

...St. Robert Bellarmine exclaimed: "And who, I ask, could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling place of the Word of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, could be reduced to ruin? My soul is filled with horror at the thought that this virginal flesh which had begotten God, had brought him into the world, had nourished and carried him, could have been turned into ashes or given over to be food for worms."

"What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"..."Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust."

...that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven...

It is superficial to claim that the dormition or Assumption are separate doctrines or separate feasts, even if Catholics and Orthodox have different understandings of them. They are the same event and same holy day. If you want to treat them differently, than make one article for Catholics and one for Orthodox about the Assumption. Oct13 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually they are separate feasts and the theology is different among different denominations. So I think the presentation and structure is correct as is. History2007 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaagh, I saw you edit again. One of these days you need to read up on theology my friend. See:

• Dogmatics I: The Christian Doctrine of God - Page 105
• Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics - Page 141

The only formal dogma in the East Orthdox Church goes back to the Nicene period. So your edit is just confused, mixing Catholic dogma with EO ideas... sigh... History2007 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lutheranism

Although Lutherans do not, at least officially, recognize the Assumption, they do celebrate "Mary, Mother of Our Lord" on August 15th.. the same day Catholics celebrate the Assumption. Should this be added to the article? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If they do not recognize it, it is a date coincidence of some type. So I would not suggest it. History2007 (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, the date is not a coincidence. Rwflammang (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Nestorians and Jacobites

The article says that the doctrine spread throughout the church in the 7th century. If this were the case, I'd expect to find that it did not spread to the Nestorians nor the Jacobites who had already separated from the Catholic and Orthodox church. It would be interesting to see some information on Nestorian and Jacobite views of the Dormition, if any such information is available. Rwflammang (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Other Place

It would be a bit odd to think that Mary would have gone to the other place! I thought all good people go to heaven and the rest to the other place. Is the essential difference that she has ascended BODILY as well as spiritually? Maybe someone would like to tackle the making of a simple english version. I see that there isn't one at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntersMoon22 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You can call the other place by its proper name, which is "hell"... and, thank God, not only the good people go to Heaven, but also the curably bad people... That said, there are people we hope to be in Heaven with their soul, there are people we know to be in Heaven with their soul (viz. the Saints) and there are people we know to be in Heaven with their soul and body (two of them, viz. Christ, and Mary). So, yes, the essential part of the dogma is that Mary is there bodily as well as spiritually.

(There is also some pious opinioning about very few we know to be saints but who may have been also assumed bodily, for instance St. Joseph, and according to some the ancient saints that were bodily resurrected at the time of Our Lord's crucifixion; and then there is one person, Elijah, and maybe a second, Enoch, who have their body still but about which we do not know whether they are dead at all.)--93.134.220.171 (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is Mary's body now?

If Mary's actual physical body was assumed into Heaven, presumably it still exists somewhere, in an actual physical place. Should not this article explain where that place is? Or at least tell us what the Churches' position is on where it is? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "in heaven" already the answer? Rmhermen (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If Mary's actual physical body is in "Heaven", then Heaven must be an actual physical place, which I don't think is the view of any Christian denomination. So where have they put the body? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The same question, of course, can be asked about Christ's physical body. The theological response is to suggest that both Christ's and Mary's bodies are now resurrected and glorified bodies which are not subject to the limitations of physicality as experienced in this life. Anglicanus (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

AD

Is the use of "AD" really necessary when discussing a Christian teaching? If so, then it should be used with all the dates mentioned, not just two. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge from Ferragosto

It's very strange to settle a choice in a discussion with just 1 (one!) answer.

The answer is wrong too, the Italian holiday has religious connection, it is indeed about the Assumption of Mary. (Of course people does other thing too, and some people just them, but the same happens in other religious feast too, some people look Christmas just as opening gift box. But you can not same that is an unrelated and not religious feast, as on the other side I can suppose Independence Day (India) and so on are unrelated with Assumption of Mary (or Christmas or so on).

Mostly, if "It takes place in the whole world, not just Italy" why we have an article about the Italian only (a Wikipedia:Systemic bias article) and not just state in this general article (which is also about "a religious feast as a secondary part", as you had stated)? --5.170.57.228 (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Assumption of Mary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130904181017/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130904181017/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130904181017/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130904181017/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130904181017/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131104172841/http://prayerbook.ca/the-prayer-book-online/57-the-calendar-ix to http://prayerbook.ca/the-prayer-book-online/57-the-calendar-ix
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311005046/http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199210749 to http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199210749
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130904181017/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent name changes

I've reverted the recent changes and put in a request to have the move reverted. This article is about the concept currently, but a move to Feast of the Assumption makes it about the liturgical event, which would need discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Dormition the same as the Assumption" is a POV?

I would like to point out that the statement "Dormition of the Theotokos.....is the same as the Assumption" is a POV which is argued against. The Dormition ("Falling Asleep") is the actual death of Mary, whereas the Assumption (Latin "ad sumere", to take to oneself) includes the removal of her body to heaven after she was buried. The distinction is easily appreciated by looking at Jerusalem. The church of Dormition Abbey to the south of the walled city is the traditional site of the Dormition, whereas the Tomb of Mary outside the east gate is that of the Assumption. I've heard a Russian Orthodox archimandrite expound the distinction in an anti-Roman Catholic sermon, carefully and with vigour. Basilwatkinsosb (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Agree that it's POV--and, for that matter, inaccurate--to say "Dormition" (belief in Mary's death) is the same as "Assumption" (belief that her body was taken into Heaven, either after or instead of her death). After all, most Western Catholics believe in the Assumption but not the Dormition (while Eastern Orthodox believe in both). I removed that phrase. — Narsil (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Narsil, After all, most Western Catholics believe in the Assumption but not the Dormition is 100% false. The overwhelming consensus within Western Catholic theology is that Mary died. Pius XII simply didn’t define that bit dogmatically. Every secular academic course I’ve taken on the matter considers the two terms to be synonymous in use, with dormition being simply the Eastern equivalent. I’d need time to find the sourcing but the secular religious scholars I’m familiar with view the two as functionally equivalent in terms of how they are used in pratice. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Edited the above a bit: after going back through notes and sourcing: yes, there is a distinction, but the traditions are so closely related that they are often considered part of one unit of study (see this source which has an in depth discussion of it.) Anyway, I've looked over the changes again and am fine with the change you made in the lede, but I would oppose any further changes along the lines suggesting that the Western Catholic tradition does not believe in the dormition: that is not true, and was my main objection above. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It is possible to believe that Mary died (the Dormition) without believing her body was taken into Heaven (the Assumption). It is possible to believe her body was taken into Heaven without believing she died first. Therefore, the two terms are not equivalent—yes? — Narsil (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely accurate, while you can make a distinction of the terms and such a distinction does exist in some scholarship, as Shoemaker points out in the source I linked above, Assumptionist traditions within Dormition narratives have existed for a long time, and the modern distinction in some scholarship between the two is largely a product of Pius XII's 1950 definition of the Assumption. Probably the most accurate way to explain it would be that in some dormition narratives, including the one currently held by the Catholic Church, Mary's body is assumed into heaven. Western Christians tend to refer to these series of events as the Assumption rather than the Dormition, even if both are believed in. Many Eastern Christians believe in both the Dormition and the Assumption, but collectively refer to the events under the Dormition title rather than the Assumption title, even if a technical theological distinction is made.

My point being "The Dormition and the Assumption are two different events" is a lot more fuzzy than it is made out to be. For the majority of Christian traditions, in practice, the words refer to the same event sequence and are used interchangeably. The distinction is largely academic, and even then sources tend to point out the distinction isn't as clear cut as it seems.

How that impacts this article: not much currently. Like I said, I'm fine with the removal you made, if only because it was an improvement in writing style. I'd oppose further distinguishing the two concepts in the article because sourcing sees it fuzzier than a clear distinction and you could make a pretty strong argument against it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

While it is certainly true that the Assumption is not mentioned in the New Testament canon, I'm not entirely sure this needs to be in the lead. That seems to give undue weight to what is essentially the sola scriptura view of Christian theology: a view which is rejected by the ancient Christian traditions of both the East and the West who profess belief in the Dormition/Assumption. Basically, the scriptural presence of the claimed event isn't really necessary for those who believe in it, and discussing it in the lead presents the entire article in a Protestant framework. It can certainly be mentioned in the body, as it is, but no need to give prominence to it in the lead.

Johnbod, I see that you've been cleaning up some of the other changes on related articles recently, and I'd appreciate your thoughts here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"No straightforward description in NT" is essential info, belongs in the lead

I have reformulated the statement in the lead to read:

"The Christian canonical scriptures contain no explicit narrative about the death or Dormition, nor of the Assumption of Mary, but several scriptural passages have been theologically interpreted to describe the ultimate fate in this and the afterworld of the Mother of Jesus (see below)."

This after Willthacheerleader18 reversed a less carefully worded paragraph on the topic. I want to make sure it's not again being removed, because the number one question in any issue of Christian religion is: how well is it rooted in Scripture? And the Assumption is not present, anywhere, in a straightforward description of events, like in the case of Jesus' birth, baptism, crucifixion, burial, deeds and miracles before and after resurrection etc. There is none. Period. All else is theology, and has many opponents.

Willthacheerleader18's argument that stating this fact openly is "unnecessary and discredits Catholic, Anglican, & Orthodox interpretation of scripture (see scriptural basis section)" is from a different realm than an encyclopedia (and 21st-century internet) altogether. I didn't mock anyone, I just gave the most important bit of info any Christian and non-Christian user would be looking for here, and which was missing. Please make sure it stays in the lead. The wording is not essential, as long as it does not hide the facts. Thanks and cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

... and TonyBallioni has reverted it without reading anything, and all the other small, but useful edits I made along with this main one. Exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction I was afraid of. This is an encyclopedia, not a diplomatic letter to the Vatican's emissary to the jungle. Because the Pope & modern Catholic theologians can easily deal with this fact, and have no need to keep it hidden in paragraph 15 B from the bottom. Arminden (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I reverted your reinserting a sentence that clearly frames the article in a Protestant theological framework in the lead, before you had posted to the talk, and explained myself. You then reverted after two editors have challenged you, and posted a rant that claims to insert the the most important bit of info any Christian and non-Christian user would be looking for here. That assertion in itself is clearly a Protestant assertion as how theology is to be viewed: significantly over 50% of Christians (Catholics and Orthodox Christians)do not view how well is it rooted in Scripture? as the number one question in any issue of Christian religion, and claiming so shows the POV behind framing it this way in the lead.

NPOV requires that we represent legitimate points of view in the article. It does not mandate that we frame articles on Catholic and Orthodox theological beliefs in a Protestant framework from the very beginning of the article. Please revert until we can get consensus on how to deal with this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"the number one question in any issue of Christian religion is: how well is it rooted in Scripture?" Oh really? Is that a policy I was unaware of on Wikipedia? I reverted your edit because you contradicted the article by adding that sentence to the lead. There is a subsection in the article already that discusses scriptural references used by Christians who believe in the Assumption/Falling Asleep of Mary (namely Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox). Whether or not you agree with their scriptural interpretations is not the issue. Your POV does not belong in an article on Wikipedia. Feel free to add to the Protestant argument against the dogma, sure, but do not try to make such claims in the article's lead. (As clarification reminder, I reverted your edit which added The death or Dormition, as well as the Assumption of Mary, are not recorded in the Christian canonical scriptures. to the lead. A statement which, according to the article itself, is false.) -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the 2nd version is better than the first (I've also simplified to just "the New Testament"), but I'm still not entirely sure it belongs in the lead, at least not without additional balancing information that looks at this from a historical perspective and traces the historical development of the Dormition/Assumption tradition. Unlike other Marian traditions (such as the perpetual virginity and others surrounding the Annunciation) the Dormition/Assumption tradition was a relatively later development (late 4th to 8th centuries). Tracing it over time and presenting the full framing in the lead of the historical development of the dogma is the best option under NPOV rather than framing it in a Protestant critique. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's ok now, but the lead is 5 paras. I'd merge #3 ("In Munificentissimus Deus (item 39) Pope Pius XII pointed to the Book of Genesis (3:15) as scriptural support...") lower down, or remove if it's covered. I'd remove "Protestants argue ..." as, the way its now stated, this is hardly in dispute, and maybe add something about tradition. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Quoted Anglican source not available online; available edition contradicts statement

"The Annotated Book of Common Prayer" edition of 1907, offered as a source, is not available online . Only the 1866 edition is fully available, and it contradicts the quote given in the article: here the Falling Asleep is only mentioned in the "Comparative View" on p. [52] as "Eastern", as opposed to the "modern Roman" term "Assumption", so as an Eastern, not Anglican term or feast. The 1872 edition has the same content, as apparently do the 1884 and 1892 editions (the last before 1907 offered by Google Books). Even if it is known that it was in the 20th century that some Anglican-Catholic rapprochement has taken place, this is a concrete book published in 1866 or 67 by John Henry Blunt, who has been dead since 1884, not an official and constantly updated prayer book of the Church of England, so that as long as a readily available quote from a more recent edition (1907, or why not 2017!!!) isn't provided, I must conclude that the source has been misquoted and remove it from this context. PS: the editor who introduced the source filled in the author as "|first= England |last= Church of" (or the other way round, whatever), which makes me totally doubt the reliability of this reference. Arminden (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Contradiction

Is there a contradiction in the article?

In one place it says: "There is a complete lack of historical evidence for belief in the Assumption in the traditions of the EARLY church.

and a second place it says: "From EARLIEST times there have been two different traditions about the Assumption, the first being that Mary's soul was taken to heaven by Christ after her death her while her body was taken by angels to Paradise (located on Earth) where it would remain until the general resurrection of the dead, while the second held that her soul and her body were reunited, so that Mary is a complete and a perfect person in heaven; the first is broadly the position of Eastern Orthodoxy, while the second is that of the Catholic church." Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source that asserts her empty tomb, no relics to be found, no relics ever venerated by the faithful. Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Not so much a contradiction in the article as a lack of clarity, due to the use of that vague word "earliest". Shoemaker is clear that Epiphanius was the first to write about the question, in the late 4th century, and that he could discover no clear tradition in his day. The tradition began soon after with those two apocryphal texts, although clearly (says Shoemaker) those were crystalised out of discussion and speculation at the popular level.Achar Sva (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Another contradiction.

1) There is a complete lack of historical evidence for belief in the Assumption in the traditions of the early church. (33-325 = 4th century)

2) The Dormition/Assumption of Mary makes its first appearance in two apocryphal texts from the THIRD and fourth centuries.

The Assumption appears in the third or in the fourth century?--Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, needs to be looked into. Probably a misunderstanding of what the source says.Achar Sva (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Etymology section

There is a new contribution by tue user "Oct13" but...

As far as I know in the Catholic Church "Assumption" is not the same that "Ascension"

Was Jesus assumed to heaven? Was Jesus taken to heaven by someone?

In theology, Assumption is when someone is taken to Heaven by someone else. Mary was taken (assumed) into heaven.

Ascension is when someone goes to heaven on their own means. Jesus' Ascension.Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

An etymology section is redundant. The phrase "assumption of Mary" is a theological conventional, it has no meaning on a word-for-word basis; likewise the "ascension of Jesus" (or Christ) is conventional: in other words, these phrases derive their significance from what theologians and the Church have allocated to them,not from any inherent meaning of the words. I don't think it belongs in the article. Achar Sva (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The very common meaning of the word is that in logic etc. The other meaning used here is effectively now only used in this theological sense, & it is worth explaining the etymology so that readers are not confused. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this text talking about the Assumption of Mary?

There is a text that says "while the second held that her soul and her body were reunited, so that Mary is a complete and a perfect person in heaven"

Is this talking about Assumption? The text doesn't mention the Assumption. The article is about Assumption of Mary, right?

I think it needs more references and a better explanation. The part "her soul and her body were reunited" is not about Assumption.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You might well be right.Achar Sva (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Or wrong. If you were more clear, it might be possible to tell. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Definition (first sentence of lead)

The current definition reads:
The Assumption of Mary into Heaven (often shortened to the Assumption) is, according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodoxy,[3] among others, the bodily taking up of Mary, the mother of Jesus, into Heaven at the end of her earthly life.
This is unsourced (the numeral 3 refers readers to the 1907 Anglican Book of Common Prayer, but the quoted page doesn't support the statement and the Book of Common Prayer is in any case not a statement of Anglican belief). It is also incorrect: Orthodoxy holds the Dormition, not the Assumption, and the Protestant churches hold the belief to be in error (a few Anglo-Catholics don't alter that). We need an accurate, sourced statement, such as the one from Ford which I provided:
The Assumption of Mary (often shortened to the Assumption) is a dogma of the Catholic Church, proclaimed in 1950 by Pope Pius XII, which states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was "assumed" (meaning taken up) into Heaven, body and soul, on the completion of her earthly life; it does not state whether she died, or whether she went to sleep in the Lord (the latter view is known as the Dormition of Mary).[3]Achar Sva (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It couldn't be because "sleep in the Lord" that is not a theological language, and it's not the same than "Dormition of the Mother of God".--Rafaelosornio (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Those aren't my words, it's quoted from Ford's book - it's him saying it's theological language (or I imagine it can be interpreted that way). For the record, "sleep" (English) is exactly the same as "dormition" (Latin). The real thing is, though: do you have a source saying that the Orthodox world accepts the Catholic doctrine of the Assumption? Achar Sva (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the Catholic doctrine was very carefully designed to be compatible with Orthodox belief, by only dogmatizing those bits of typical Catholic views that the Orthodox shared. I wouldn't word it quite like this myself though. The general Orthodox view is the same as the Catholic one: that Mary is body and soul in heaven. Exactly what happened around the time of her death/dormition is not dogmatically defined by either tradition. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sleep in the Lord" is used by Jehovah's Witnesses and members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to refer to a doctrine very different from that of the Assumption of Mary. According to them after you die you are literally sleeping and no one goes to heaven or hell after death. Dormition of Mary refers to the fact that Mary died painlessly, she only closed her eyes, her body was transfigured and she was immediately taken body and soul to Heaven. It doesn't refer that she literally continues sleeping.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source or sources? I'm not trying to be difficult, but we do need reliable sources, especially for something so important a definition. (The 1907 Anglican Book of Common Prayer is not a reliable source).Achar Sva (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)21:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Soul and body reunited?

This is a new thing to me. I have never heard of the difference between the Eastern Orthodox view and the allegedly Catholic view of what happened to her soul vs. her body. There is no Catholic doctrine about this. It cannot be said to be the "position" of the Catholic Church something which is not declared in the dogma. Beliefs about the details of her body, soul, paradise, the resurrection, etc. These are "pious beliefs" and permitted for the faithful to hold them, but do not rise to the level of doctrine that is taught. You won't find this in the Catechism. Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've rechecked the source (Boss), and I believe I've reflected it accurately. Boss says that the belief that Mary's soul was separated from her body, the soul in heaven and the body in Paradise (which is on Earth somewhere) is specifically connected with the Eastern church. I imagine that the modern Catechism would be teaching the dogma formulated in 1950, so that any previous variant traditions would be overwritten. The modern, 1950, belief also seems to rule out any separation of body and soul: "We proclaim and define it to be a dogma revealed by God that the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven." I'll look up some theological dictionaries/encyclopedias.Achar Sva (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, on reading the papal bull for myself, I see the formulation of "body and soul, joined in heaven" is right there. So it was thoughtless of me to say that it isn't Church teaching.

Of course, ask 10 Eastern Catholics how the dogma is formulated and you'll get 10 answers, because theoretically they accept the whole Catholic faith exactly as Latins do, but practically they (of the Byzantine Rite) are united in doctrine with the Eastern Orthodox. Elizium23 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's very strange that the book says: "her body an her soul were reunited, so that Mary is a complete and a perfect person in heaven." BUT AFTER THAT IT SAYS: "It is the latter tradition which was formulated in the Bull Munificentissimus Deus" but the Bull doesn't say: "her body an her soul were reunited." I think the phrase "were reunited" requires more references.Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The dogma leaves of lot of questions like that unanswered, apparently deliberately (after all, how could anyone possibly know?) I'm trying to draw a distinction between the Catholic dogma and the Orthodox belief, which I gather is much more diffuse. Shoemaker is good, he seems to be an authority.Achar Sva (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As for a reunion of body and soul in heaven, the idea (I believe) is that all of us, when we die, leave our body behind while our soul is taken to heaven, and that eventually, at the Second Coming. we'll be given a new heavenly body. (That's not in the source, of course, it's my understanding of basic Christian teaching). The Orthodox belief, the Dormition, is that Mary's body was transported to Paradise, which is someplace other than heaven, where it remains in a state of sleep (hence the Dormition), so that it does not suffer corruption. (Bodily corruption is an important part of the belief, and should be developed more in the article our bodies suffer corruption, Mary's does not). In Orthodoxy, Mary's soul will be reunited with her uncorrupted body at the Second Coming, but in the Catholic belief, her bod and soul are already reunited in heaven.Achar Sva (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this is nonsense. Pretty much all of it. See our article, which gives a reasonably coherent account of Orthodox views. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The doctrine is: soul and body are together in heaven. This is what all the saved are supposed to get eventually, it is just that Mary, alone, got it first.

The question is: were the soul and body ever separated? Some say yes, some say no. There has never been a definite statement; the Catholic 1950 declaration only states what happened to the body. This only underlines that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven, whether the soul stayed with it (uniquely), or left to be reunited with the body later (as will happen in future with all the saved) is unclear. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:F110:7B50:5361:ED7D (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Combative tones

Hey, so I noticed that these Catholic articles have combative tones, more or less, and I think the common denominator is @Achar Sva:. I don't know the background, but I think a more diverse editing team is needed than just a single person. --70.24.84.148 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva is a highly competent and highly learned editor. He is the most informed Wikipedian in respect to mainstream Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

there is no historical evidence whatever for the assumption ... until what century

Until what century is there no historical evidence?, because of course the assumption of Mary is in history. The Eamon Duffy book says until the fourth century, but the user Achar is removing it at all times.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the book says there's no evidence at all, not just no historical evidence. Epiphanius found none. Achar Sva (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Shoemaker book says "There is no evidence of any tradition concerning Mary’s Dormition and Assumption from before the fifth century." (page 26)--Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct. Isn't that made clear in the article? Achar Sva (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Tradition is History, did you know it?Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not true. Achar Sva (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

So the Assumption never appears in history, even in the 21st century? Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think your English is letting you down here. Achar Sva (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolution of dispute over passage from Shoemaker 2006 p.25

Rafaelosornio, you are obviously committed to your version of the sentence that's based on page 25 of Shoemaker's 2006 book, so I'll explain why I can't accept it. The page in question is to long to quote in full, but the relevant part says: This earliest evidence for the veneration of Mary appears to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu.

You quote this as it stands, not realising that it's referencing two texts, the "Book of Mary's Repose" and the "Six Books Dormition Apocryphyon" - when in my version I say that "Both appear to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu," this is the "both" I'm talking about - the two texts. In other words, you and I are saying exactly the same thing in different words, but mine, unlike yours, avoids copyvio.

At that point you break my sentence, but don't restore a source - the source is right there, just copy and paste it. Then you say: "This could suggest that the cult of the Virgin had its origins..." etc (the rest of the sentence is identical with mine). This replaces what I had: "...suggesting that the veneration of Mary had its origins..." Of course, "cult" is the word used by Shoemaker, but I changed it to avoid copyvio. Apart from that, I can't see what point you're trying to make, although I can certainly see that your version is stylistically inferior (it's two sentences instead of one and destroys the clear link to the preceding reference to "two aprocryphal texts"). Now please discuss this here before I have to take it to dispute resolution. Achar Sva (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If you read page 24 it just talking about the Book of Mary’s Repose not both, I put the full text:

"Perhaps most noteworthy for our purposes, however, is the evidence that the Book of Mary’s Repose provides for nascent Marian veneration, already by the third century it would seem.

Particularly in its conclusion, as Mary tours the places of the damned alongside the apostles, the power of her intercessions on behalf of sinners is made known. For this reason Enrico Norelli has recently proposed that the traditions of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption first emerged during the second century in order to add validation to an existing practice of intercessory prayer to the Virgin: it is an intriguing hypothesis that certainly merits further reflection.

Yet it is also worth noting here that this earliest evidence for the veneration of Mary appears to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu.

This could suggest, as noted briefly above, that the cult of the Virgin had its origins somewhere outside of the proto- orthodox stream of early Christianity, a point that also could explain the relative silence of many early orthodox fathers concerning Mary."

The key is this: "Book of Mary’s Repose provides for nascent Marian veneration". The text of the article should be as following:

"Book of Mary’s Repose provides the earliest evidence for the veneration of Mary that appears to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu. This could suggest that the cult of the Virgin had its origins somewhere outside of the proto- orthodox stream of early Christianity, a point that also could explain the relative silence of many early orthodox fathers concerning Mary." What do you think? Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You say that Shoemaker is referencing only one text. Go back a little, to page 23: "Two apocryphal texts from the third and fourth centuries, are exceptional, however, and their interest in the Virgin Mary and her veneration merits special attention." Two texts, not one. On page 24 he says: "The first of these two...is the Book of Mary's Repose. After discussing the BMR he says on page 25: "[T]he second of these two important early Dormition narratives [is] the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon. Two texts, and we have to reflect this.

So, taking your proposal above as our basis, I would amend it as follows:

• Two apocryphal texts from the third and fourth centuries, the "Book of Mary's Repose" (late 3rd century) and the "Six Books Dormition Apocryphon" (4th century) provide the earliest surviving accounts of Mary's assumption and dormition.(Source is Shoemaker p.23). Both appear to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu, suggesting that the cult of the Virgin had its origins somewhere outside of the proto-orthodox stream of early Christianity, a point that also could explain the relative silence of many early orthodox fathers concerning her."(Page 25).

I wouldn't add the hypothesis that the veneration of Mary arose in the 2nd century, as Soemaker doesn't say how widely accepted this is.Achar Sva (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree because the source says "provides the earliest evidence for the veneration of Mary that appears to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu" You want to skip this. Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The source does mention the veneration of Mary, but mostly it talks about the assumption/dormition. See page 23: "The writings in question (i.e., the two books we're discussing) are the earliest surviving accounts of the end of Mary's life, that is, her Dormition and Assumption." As our article is about the Assumption it makes no sense to pretend that Shoemaker is not talking about it. Achar Sva (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Achar Sva

@Achar Sva: I am not very happy about the fact that I (and it seems others) seem to have no say in this. Wikipedia is nothing if not a team effort, and we respect your contributions, but reverting every single edit feels a little disheartening. I spent a good deal of time making sure that I cited sources accurately and gave specific page numbers.

I would appreciate if we could edit this article together, rather than you simply reverting anyone who disagrees.

Thanks --65.94.99.123 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Achar Sva: I am not sure what I am doing wrong. You keep insisting I call myself a name, which is not required by Wikipedia rules. I am following wiki procedures and you seem to have no regard for it. I did not merely write my opinion. Every single edit was cited and I made sure to leave every one of your edits in. I do not know why there is no possibility of co-operation on this article --65.94.99.123 (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi again 65.94.99.123. I don't insist you get a user-name I just strongly advise it as it makes exchanging messages easier. Now as for your edits and why I reverted them. Yes, you used sources, and even took them from the existing bibliography, but I believe the sources don't support what you wrote. I'll do this in bullet points:

• You want to add this: The earliest Dormition traditions all see Mary's death as special. Source is Shoemaker 2002 p.14. Yes, but what does this tell us about the origins of the belief/tradition?
• You want to say: Eamon Duffy argues that there is no historical evidence for Mary's assumption. No, he doesn't argue, he simply states. And we only mention Duffy's name (or anyone's name) if that person originated or is a major representative of a point of view to which there is an important countervailing point of view - then we say, "according to A this, and according to B that". In this case there's no one who argues that there is historical evidence that the assumption happened. The most the Church says is that it can be read into various passages of the Bible, and we cover those (or at least the main ones).
• You want to qualify it is generally agreed that it [i.e., the assumption] was unknown in the earliest ages of the Church (sourced from Cross and Livingstone, p.118) with though the state of the sources concerning the Dormition and the Assumption is limited. (Shoemaker 2002 p.2). The limited nature of the sources is in fact the prime evidence that the tradition was unknown in the first century and for most of the second. They (the sources) first appear in the late 2nd century at the very earliest, as our article says, and it's not until the 4th that they become plentiful. In other words, you're reading into your source (Shoemaker) something that isn't actually there.

I think those are all the changes you wanted, and I hope I've explained clearly that although they are sourced, the use you make make of the sources doesn't square with what they actually say. Achar Sva (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Thanks so much for your engagement. Let me try to respond

1) Shoemaker himself takes this to be important to how early the doctrine could have been believed. Also, it is worth noting that the idea that Dormition traditions came before developed assumption is cited by Shoemaker numerous times. This gives the historical perspective and is important as to how early the tradition is.

2) We add names like "Duffy states" when something seems straightforwardly contentious. There is no evidence of any kind is a categorical statement. What counts as evidence is a matter of philosophy. It is not a statement of historical fact (since evidence can be many things). What I would NOT contend is something like this "the evidence is on very shaky grounds" or something like that. It must be noted that this is a conclusion. It is also something that would be challenged, since even the Church as you noted would argue that there is evidence. After all, who are we to say that someone's private revelation does not count as evidence. Sure, it's not something historians would consider GOOD evidence

3) With respect I am not. Shoemaker is careful to avoid the argument from silence, and clarifies that we need to keep in mind just how limited our sources are before making grand statements. This is an important point.

4) You missed one more. I quoted about how nothing in sources contradicts the belief in Assumption.

Thanks 65.94.99.123 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You say that the sentence, "The earliest Dormition traditions all see Mary's death as special" (Shoemaker 2002 p.14), is important for showing how early the belief arose, but we already say that "the belief makes its first appearance in two apocryphal texts from the third and fourth centuries, the Liber Requiei Mariae (Book of Mary's Repose) and the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon", and this is sourced from Shoemaker. Does your sentence add anything?

Duffy's statement no doubt seems contentious to you, but we're only interested in the opinions of scholars. Our article already points out that "in the late 4th century Epiphanius of Salamis wrote he could find no authorized tradition about how her life ended" - - do you have any scholar today who presents historical evidence of Mary's assumption?

You say that Shoemaker avoids any making argument from silence. So do I. In fact I make no argument at all, I simply present scholarly opinion. This is what Wikipedia does - opinion, not argument.

You say I missed a quote about how nothing in sources contradicts the belief in Assumption. I'm sorry for that, but in this case it's you who is making an argument from silence. Achar Sva (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Achar Sva: like you, I make no arguments. I cite sources and follow wikipedia practices.

1) Shoemaker's point is that PRIOR to these 5th century texts, we see dormition stories developing special treatment of Mary's death. That's what it adds. It also implicitly brings back the research cited by Shoemaker regarding the alleged development of this doctrine

2) No. It is not contentious to me. It is contentious factually. I have no problem with it staying, but it needs to be clear that this is what ONE, not particularly notable, historian concluded. I have no problem with quoting it.

3) By citing a source that says that it is generally agreed this was unknown in the church, and then not allowing a source that CLARIFIES this and makes it clear that this consensus COULD BE faulty bcs of data, you are committed to the arg from silence.

4) Once again, I was not making an argument. Simply verbatim quoting Shoemaker. In fact, not even a paraphrase. Verbatim quote

65.94.99.123 (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, and so I think we need to go to content dispute resolution - I'm thinking "third opinion", or 3O as it's called. Don't be alarmed, it's simply a way of bringing fresh eyes to the problem. I'll do it tomorrow, but would you like me to explain how it works first? Achar Sva (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Achar Sva: I would be grateful if you explained what you mean. Do you mean you don’t like dialoguing with me on how to best construct this article? You would like to talk to someone else?--65.94.99.123 (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

because @Achar Sva: it was not my intention to offend you at all. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not at all offended, you've been absolutely proper in your behaviour, but I feel we're not getting anywhere. A "third opinion" will act as a kind of impartial referee. But not now, I'm tired. Achar Sva (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Achar Sva: I am very happy to hear that we are on good terms. Since you seem to know way more than I do about this website, let me know when someone weighs in and what the consequences are. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the page on dispute resolution. You'll see there are two kinds of disputes, content disputes and conduct disputes. Conduct disputes are serious, content disputes not so serious. Third opinion, or 3O, is one way of resolving content disputes. It's for small disputes involving only two editors. Here's the longer page on Third Opinion dispute resolution. Note that it's not mandatory or binding - that is, you don't have to do it, and it doesn't bind either of us - it's more like asking some outsider to intervene. So read that, and when we're ready I'll lodge the request, ok? Achar Sva (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Achar Sva: I trust you. Let me know if I have to make an argument for my side/position. Love 65.94.99.123 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Untitled RfC

The question is, which version is better, version 1 or version 2? Or perhaps some middle position?

1. There is no historical evidence for Mary's assumption, and it is generally agreed that it was unknown in the earliest ages of the Church.
2. The earliest Dormition traditions all see Mary's death as special. Eamon Duffy argues that there is no historical evidence for Mary's assumption, and it is generally agreed that it was unknown in the earliest ages of the Church, though the state of the sources concerning the Dormition and the Assumption is limited.

For the reasons we give for our preferred versions, please see the immediately preceding section. Please note also that the ISP and I are not hostile towards each other. Achar Sva (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(Note: Because the other party is an ISP, I cannot inform him of this, but I understand he follows the page. He might like to add to what I have written above).

References

• Support Achar Sva because, speaking from experience, he is right most of the time about the history of the Bible and Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• No Support Achar Sva The Achar Sva user usually puts what suits him, and when he cites something he does so incompletely. Other times he removes perfectly referenced content. Other times he puts texts completely different from what the source says, so you always have to review his editions because he often alters what the sources say. Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps I should say why I trust him: he was educated as historian, worked as historian, under another account (now abandoned), he was designated by the Wikipedia Community to rewrite contentious Bible articles. So, it could sometimes be the case that he is deleting his own past edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: I do not want this debate to turn about the competence of Achar Sva @Tgeorgescu:, @Rafaelosornio:. I fully concede that they seem like a very reasonable and a competent editor. I think that my version is more accurate to the sources, and is able to accommodate all view points referenced. This debate is about how this article should look, not on who is more competent. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have given multiple reasons for thinking that my version is better. 1, like Achar Sva's version, it relies on reputable sources with no original research. It is worded better and accommodates writers' perspectives better, and sounds more neutral and distanced. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, @Tgeorgescu: I would appreciate if you went over the arguments themselves, rather than supporting someone due to prior experience. Thanks 65.94.99.123 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know much about this dogma and I normally speaking heard very little talks about it. So, no, if I have to take a crash course into distinctively Catholic theology in order to answer this, no thanks, I can use my time more productively. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The responsible thing in that case, would be to not vote at all. Both me and Mr. Achar Sva have cited our sources and neither of us is advocating anything crazy. You voted here, without giving my POV a chance. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I know him. I speak of what I know. I won't read eight big tomes just to answer this question. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have never questioned Mr. Achar Sva's competence. I have removed nothing Mr. Achar Sva cited and included. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Everyone, thanks for your comments, but we're not after support or non-support, we're after comments on what will be best in the article. Achar Sva (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Achar Sva:, it looks like the present state of the article accommodates both our views, so I do not know if we still need this RFC. Let me know if something changes. Yours. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)