Roman innovation

[eoe]

One of the things I find interesting about studying Oriental Orthodoxy is that it allows an interesting insight to other things as well. In particular, given the season that is approaching, the belief of the Dormition of the Theotokos. We can see clearly that, even though the EO and the OO have been seperated for even longer than the EO and RC, the beliefs held by the OO and EO line up quite well on things like this. It is a very simple thing to see what the three groups (RC EO OO) teach about things like this and to identify which has changed.

I think it is very clear that the heterodox teaching that Mary ascended without death is a Roman innovation. Thoughts?

[WarriorAngel]

It is not a matter of theology but language.

IS this turning into a GT?

All these threads about Rome?

Ok, I will deal. I will also make a thread about the Papacy! ;)

[WarriorAngel]

I think it is very clear that the heterodox teaching that Mary ascended without death is a Roman innovation. Thoughts?

Where did this come from??

The Church never said she did not die. Only that she was assumed into Heaven.
Meaning when she died, Christ took her whole being to Heaven.

Some suppose she didn't die, but the Church never said that was the case.

[a_ntv]

I think it is very clear that the heterodox teaching that Mary ascended without death is a Roman innovation. Thoughts?

The CC does not teach that Mary ascended without death
The CC does teach that Mary ascended

I think that with this precisation this thead became useless

[Fish and Bread]

I question two tendencies (They are not doctrines and some in the church where they arose reject them) of Rome and their lack of congruence with ancient tradition as it regards the Holy Family:

Firstly, there is this idea that Mary was alive when she ascended, even though all of the church Fathers speak of her falling asleep in the Lord and there is actually a *tomb* where she was held to have been attended by the Apostles before being assumed (There is a lot of ancient iconography along those lines as well). I don't understand why one would try to change this, or even how someone could, but yet we see so many who do make that push.

Secondly, there is this issue of Joseph not being an older widower. For the past five hundreds years or so many bishops and priests simply refer to Joseph as a young eternal virgin as if it were a fact, not even giving a hint that for the previous 1500 years, he was always portrayed and thought of as an aged widower who had previously married and had children. It's nice that they want to reinforce this theological idea that there is some value in celibacy for those who are called, but, what's next "Abraham the perpetual virgin"? Never mind the bible or tradition, the seed of the father of Israel was literal seed that didn't require carnal relations. ;)

I hope I am not going too far with this, I just get upset. Catholicism has such a beautiful tradition. Why tinker?

[xristos.anesti]

I

IS this turning into a GT?

All these threads about Rome?



Funny - of all the people you should ask this!

[WarriorAngel]

Funny - of all the people you should ask this!

Roman INNOVATION...was the title, I took exception to.

Innovation means to create, or make up.
The title should have been more respectful.

So I apologise if I took an exception to the title.
Its rather disconcerting to see these things.

[Albion]

Roman INNOVATION...was the title, I took exception to.

Innovation means to create, or make up.
The title should have been more respectful.

So I apologise if I took an exception to the title.
Its rather disconcerting to see these things.


I agree. The title should at least have been followed by a question mark.

But perhaps here's a situation in which we can really get to the brass tacks on the matter. Can someone produce any liturature, perhaps the Collect from the Mass for the Assumption, so we can see for sure if Mary is believed to have been assumed before or after death? I also had thought that the belief was that she was assumed after death, although I admit that religious paintings depict her as going up in exactly the same way that Jesus did. Or possibly someone could find the wording of the ex cathedra decree which established the Assumption as Catholic dogma.

[Simon_Templar]

I would think that the teaching of the Immaculate Conception would necessitate that Mary Ascended without death.

Death was the result of the fall, original sin etc etc. If Mary is free from all stain of original sin, she would, logically, have been immortal physically. Unless you argue that the mortality derived from Adam's fall was spiritual only, and that man was always physically mortal, (which I personally don't agree with but its arguable I guess).

[WarriorAngel]

I agree. The title should at least have been followed by a question mark.

But perhaps here's a situation in which we can really get to the brass tacks on the matter. Can someone produce any liturature, perhaps the Collect from the Mass for the Assumption, so we can see for sure if Mary is believed to have been assumed before or after death? I also had thought that the belief was that she was assumed after death, although I admit that religious paintings depict her as going up in exactly the same way that Jesus did. Or possibly someone could find the wording of the ex cathedra decree which established the Assumption as Catholic dogma.


LINK (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm)

If we consult genuine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137a.htm) writings in the East (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm), it is mentioned in the sermons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07448a.htm) of St. Andrew of Crete (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01473b.htm), St. John Damascene (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08459b.htm), St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm), St. Gregory of Tours (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07018b.htm) (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07448a.htm) of St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm) and St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) for this feast (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06021b.htm), however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08459b.htm) (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344x.htm):

St. Juvenal, Bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344x.htm), at the Council of Chalcedon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm) (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09644a.htm) and Pulcheria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12561c.htm), who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm), that Mary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm) died in the presence of all the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), but that her tomb (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14774a.htm), when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14658b.htm), was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) concluded that the body was taken up to heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm).

[zhilan]

One of the things I find interesting about studying Oriental Orthodoxy is that it allows an interesting insight to other things as well. In particular, given the season that is approaching, the belief of the Dormition of the Theotokos. We can see clearly that, even though the EO and the OO have been seperated for even longer than the EO and RC, the beliefs held by the OO and EO line up quite well on things like this. It is a very simple thing to see what the three groups (RC EO OO) teach about things like this and to identify which has changed.

I think it is very clear that the heterodox teaching that Mary ascended without death is a Roman innovation. Thoughts?
This was one of the main confirmations to me that EO is right. What are the odds that both the EO and OO "left" the truth and invented the same thing? It's like a control in an experiment. If you want to know who changed, look at the one who has been seperate since nearly the beginning and see which one is closer to it. It really truly amazes me that despite being seperate for 1500 years we are the same faith and yet in 1000 years Rome has drifted so far.

[Albion]

LINK (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm)

If we consult genuine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137a.htm) writings in the East (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm), it is mentioned in the sermons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07448a.htm) of St. Andrew of Crete (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01473b.htm), St. John Damascene (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08459b.htm), St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm), St. Gregory of Tours (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07018b.htm) (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07448a.htm) of St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm) and St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) for this feast (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06021b.htm), however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08459b.htm) (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344x.htm):

St. Juvenal, Bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344x.htm), at the Council of Chalcedon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm) (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09644a.htm) and Pulcheria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12561c.htm), who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm), that Mary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm) died in the presence of all the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), but that her tomb (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14774a.htm), when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14658b.htm), was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) concluded that the body was taken up to heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm).

That probably settles it well enough, although I'd point out that no one knows where Mary is buried, so that account of an empty tomb is only legend as is the Assumption itself.

[eoe]

although I'd point out that no one knows where Mary is buried

WAS buried.

[Simon_Templar]

This was one of the main confirmations to me that EO is right. What are the odds that both the EO and OO "left" the truth and invented the same thing? It's like a control in an experiment. If you want to know who changed, look at the one who has been seperate since nearly the beginning and see which one is closer to it. It really truly amazes me that despite being seperate for 1500 years we are the same faith and yet in 1000 years Rome has drifted so far.
This is an interesting consideration. However, not entirely flawless.

If it is to be assumed that errors introduced into the faith would be the result of man's views and opinions being injected into tradition, then it would follow that errors introduced would tend to follow similar lines, especially given similar cultural/historical context in which to grow.

[eoe]

especially given similar cultural/historical context in which to grow.

That is the thing! There is no common cultural context! The Ethiopians did not share a common culture with the Greeks. There was no real contact between the two and yet we still line up on about 98% of all our beliefs.

The more interesting thing is not really what we have in common but what we commonly lack that Rome has!

[Albion]

WAS buried.

This is not a forum where it is necessary to make posts intended to impose one communion's beliefs upon the rest of us by insisting upon wording one party prefers. We know your views on the matter of the Assumption.

It is not necessary for you to write, "WAS buried" when you know that I don't believe she has been assumed into heaven, and I don't need to write "ALLEGED" Assumption when speaking to you. On TAW it would be a different situation.

That's what we'll have to do--exercise mutual respect--on a forum in which all the churches in Apostolic Succession are involved equally.

[Simon_Templar]

That is the thing! There is no common cultural context! The Ethiopians did not share a common culture with the Greeks. There was no real contact between the two and yet we still line up on about 98% of all our beliefs.

The more interesting thing is not really what we have in common but what we commonly lack that Rome has!
I think the culture of the two probably would have more in common than you might guess. Going back centuries, even before Christ, the culture of the whole eastern region had a great deal of similar influences. The divide between north and south (constantinople and Ethiopia) was much less than the divide between east and west.

The east much more takes on the hellenistic culture which is a mixture of oriental mystic worldviews with the rational greek. While the west takes on a combination of the Roman and the greek, making for a much more rationalistic, legalistic, view of things.

That was the case before Christianity ever came on the scene. There are probably plenty of differences in ethiopian and greek culture. However Greek and Ethiopian culture are much closer to each other than the western culture is to the eastern.

[Fish and Bread]

although I'd point out that no one knows where Mary is buried

I think I read about a site maintained by monks that claims to have been Mary's tomb prior to her Assumption. Not that that proves anything, but I thought it might of interest.

[kamikat]

It is not necessary for you to write, "WAS buried" when you know that I don't believe she has been assumed into heaven, and I don't need to write "ALLEGED" Assumption when speaking to you. On TAW it would be a different situation.

Maybe he didn't know. Honestly, I didn't know, until this post, that the Anglican church doesn't teach that Mary's body was assumed into heaven. Do all Anglicans believe that she wasn't, or is there variation within your church?

[WarriorAngel]

I agree...it has always been cultural...not explicitly theological.

When it comes down to it, the West has defined what was left open.
Open for others to decide what it means.

The Orthodox Eastern/Coptic do not define the terms...so no one thinks about they mean, only that that is what they believe.

But the fact the CC is so large, she is questioned on every detail....and if it is not defined, it leads to hederodox beliefs.

Being the most visible Church on earth, she could leave it open and undefined...but that would lead others to assume she doesnt have the answers.

In some instances, she doesn't have absolutes, but she does have Tradition.
Such as the Assumption.

However; the East and the Coptics both understand Mary to have risen to Heaven..I trust.

[Fish and Bread]

Maybe he didn't know. Honestly, I didn't know, until this post, that the Anglican church doesn't teach that Mary's body was assumed into heaven. Do all Anglicans believe that she wasn't, or is there variation within your church?

Anglicans differ with each other on these sorts of issues. There is a wing of the church informally known as "Anglo-Catholic", which has a Catholic/Orthodox type of praxis and is often thought of as being even more tied into traditions than Rome, and also an "Evangelical" wing, which is a bit more Lutheran-like.

There is also a distinction between "high church" and "low church" in terms of ceremony: I once attended an Episcopalian Eucharist that included incense, several Latin hymns, use of liturgical Latin, a lengthy procession to several side altars (Including a Marian one), the priests and bishops facing east toward the altar, many candles and the side lamps you see in some Eastern Orthodox churches at the ends of the pews, candles for Candlemas, very elaborate vestments, altar rails one kneeled at to take communion, etc.. I've also attended Episcopalian Eucharists where they've clapped along with "Our God is an Awesome God" in a sparsely decorated parish hall with chairs instead of pews and without kneelers at all, and talked about all of the children Mary had. :)

So, it varies a lot. I think the general vision is sort of a bridge between Catholicism and Protestantism, which goes back to Queen Elizabeth I who wanted one unified church in her country that most people could more or less agree on.

[Albion]

Maybe he didn't know. Honestly, I didn't know, until this post, that the Anglican church doesn't teach that Mary's body was assumed into heaven. Do all Anglicans believe that she wasn't, or is there variation within your church?

The Assumption would be what is considered a 'pious opinon' among most Anglicans, all across the spectrum. It has never been put on any church calendar, although August 15, celebrated in the RCC as the feast of the Assumption and as the Dormition of the Virgin in your churches, I think, is celebrated in some Anglican churches as the feast of St. Mary the Virgin.

There is no way of knowing that any Assumption took place, and we have no procedure like the Roman Catholic ex cathedra statements by which a tradition can be dogmatized.

BTW, there are a number of Anglicans who believe that Mary followed some of the Apostles to Britain shortly after the Ascension of Our Lord and is buried there. But of course that is another "pious opinion' at best.

[WarriorAngel]

The Assumption would be what is considered a 'pious opinon' among most Anglicans, all across the spectrum. It has never been put on any church calendar, although August 15, celebrated in the RCC as the feast of the Assumption and as the Dormition of the Virgin in your churches, I think, is celebrated in some Anglican churches as the feast of St. Mary the Virgin.

There is no way of knowing that any Assumption took place, and we have no procedure like the Roman Catholic ex cathedra statements by which a tradition can be dogmatized.

BTW, there are a number of Anglicans who believe that Mary followed some of the Apostles to Britain shortly after the Ascension of Our Lord and is buried there. But of course that is another "pious opinion' at best.

Mary stayed with John, who if I am not mistaken was in Greece.
Or at least when he was aged and lived on Patmos Island.

[Albion]

Mary stayed with John, who if I am not mistaken was in Greece.
Or at least when he was aged and lived on Patmos Island.

I tend to think that ithis is unlikely.

[WarriorAngel]

I tend to think that ithis is unlikely.

Why would that be?

[WarriorAngel]

Here is something I looked at.

The Christian writers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm) by no one that the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) and Evangelist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05645a.htm) John lived in Asia Minor (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01782a.htm) in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm) refers to "John, one of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) of Christ" as a witness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm) who had lived "with us", that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm) speaks in very many places of the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) John and his residence in Asia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01777b.htm) and expressly declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. haer., III, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15015a.htm) (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) to place the Apostle's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) banishment to Patmos (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11547a.htm) in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05114b.htm) (81-96). Previous to this, according to Tertullian's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm) testimony (De praescript., xxxvi), John had been thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil before the Porta Latina at Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) without suffering injury. After Domitian's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05114b.htm) death the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15015a.htm), and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age. Tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) reports many beautiful traits of the last years of his life: that he refused to remain under the same roof with Cerinthus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539a.htm) (Irenaeus "Ad. haer.", III, iii, 4); his touching anxiety about a youth who had become a robber (Clemens Alex., "Quis dives salvetur", xiii); his constantly repeated words of exhortation at the end of his life, "Little children, love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) one another" (Jerome, "Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.", vi, 10). On the other hand the stories told in the apocryphal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm) Acts of John, which appeared as early as the second century, are unhistorical invention.

link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm)

I did NOT know John was thrown in boiling oil....:eek:
And lived through it.

WOW

[Albion]

Why would that be?

Mary would have been under the protection of a senior male member of her family such as Joseph of Arimathea. She would also not likely have been on Patmos with John since his being there was a matter of being punished, exiled.

[Fish and Bread]

Mary would have been under the protection of a senior male member of her family such as Joseph of Arimathea. She would also not likely have been on Patmos with John since his being there was a matter of being punished, exiled.
What about Jesus' command to St. John on the cross: "This is your mother"? And to Mary: "This is your son"? I don't think it makes much sense to have that exchange happen, obviously so important to Christ, and then wind up having St. John live a zillion miles away from Mary. I can only imagine that if Mary was still alive at the time, John would have taken her with him to Asia minor.

Also: Wasn't St. Joseph of Arimathea in England at the time? What makes you think he was a relative of Mary's?

[Simon_Templar]

I did NOT know John was thrown in boiling oil....:eek:
And lived through it.

WOW


Not only thrown into boiling oil, but also they tried to execute him by giving him poison as well, and he was unharmed. (if memory serves)

This is why he was exiled to Patmos. The emperor and his advisors were scared by the fact that he apparently couldn't be killed and they assumed him to be some sort of powerful sorceror etc, so they exiled him to get rid of him.

This combined with several interesting scripture references gives fuel to the idea that John has infact never died. I and my brother came up with this idea before either of us ever looked at the traditional churches etc, based on some of the references in scripture. Then we were interested to find that such a tradition does infact exist within the eastern church.

My brother and I posulated on the basis of this theory, that John after leaving ephasus at over 100 years of age went to Britain and established the church there.

We were then interested to find that the Celtic church at the council of Whitby claimed that they had received their method of calculating the easter feast from John the Apostle... :)

We speculated that perhaps John, the seemingly immortal, could have sparked the legends of a similar undying prophet Emrys/Myrddin (Merlin) and that perhaps the fact that John had been the guardian of Mary could have been spun into the legends of the Lady of the Lake. (that of course is just mine and my brothers wild guesswork... cool none the less though ;) )

[Simon_Templar]

What about Jesus' command to St. John on the cross: "This is your mother"? And to Mary: "This is your son"? I don't think it makes much sense to have that exchange happen, obviously so important to Christ, and then wind up having St. John live a zillion miles away from Mary. I can only imagine that if Mary was still alive at the time, John would have taken her with him to Asia minor.

Also: Wasn't St. Joseph of Arimathea in England at the time? What makes you think he was a relative of Mary's?
Tradition holds that Joseph of Arimathea was Mary's uncle.

It is also interesting that some lesser known and lesser recognized tradition hold that Mary did indeed go with Joseph when he went to the west and eventually to England.. perhaps this is because BOTH John and Joseph went to the west, eventually to Brittain

[QuantaCura]

I think it is very clear that the heterodox teaching that Mary ascended without death is a Roman innovation. Thoughts?

It's not a teaching that she did without death (but at the same time, there is freedom to believe she did).

Two things for you to read:

St. Alphonsus Liguori, on the death and Assumption of Mary:

http://www.cin.org/ligassm1.html (http://www.cin.org/ligassm1.html)

Pope Pius XII defining the Assumption:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

[Albion]

What about Jesus' command to St. John on the cross: "This is your mother"? And to Mary: "This is your son"?

translation: Look after each other. Joseph still appears to have been the senior male member of the family and scripture offers some evidence of that, in that it was he who claimed the body, so it's not just a legend.

[eoe]

Joseph still appears to have been the senior male member of the family and scripture offers some evidence of that, in that it was he who claimed the body, so it's not just a legend.Who claimed the body? Joseph of Arimethea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea) != Joseph of Nazareth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Joseph)

Care to rethink your position here?

[Albion]

Care to rethink your position here?

No. It was Joseph of Arimathea.

Read Mark 15:43-46.

[eoe]

No. It was Joseph of Arimathea.

Read Mark 15:43-46.Exactly - it was not the "father" of Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea was NOT part of the family! How can he be the senior male?

Let's work through this together. Joseph of Nazareth is the man that was betrothed to Mary. Joseph of Arimathea was a totally different person - not within the family - who claimed Christ's body. You stated:

Joseph still appears to have been the senior male member of the family and scripture offers some evidence of that, in that it was he who claimed the body, so it's not just a legend.Again - care to rethink your position?

[Albion]

Exactly - it was not the "father" of Jesus.

Nor did anyone say that it was. I merely said that it was the senior male member of the family--Joseph of Arimathea. It is generally agreed that Jesus' Earthly father was not alive at this time and we have, as I pointed out before, the evidence that Joseph of Arimathea was part of the family because of his successful request for the body, not to mention tradition also.

[eoe]

I merely said that it was the senior male member of the family--Joseph of Arimathea.

How was he part of the family?

this:
As soon as he heard the news of Jesus' death, he "went in boldly unto Pilate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate), and craved the body of Jesus." The Scholars Version notes this as "unexpected… Is Joseph in effect bringing Jesus into his family?" [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea#_note-0)

indicates the exact opposite. If he was already part of the family then how does this make sense?


(thread is now completely derailed....)

[xristos.anesti]

Regardless what happen, it is not a matter of dogmatics - even in the Eastern Orthodox Church - whether Theotokos was assumed into heaven, at what point in time etc.

Orthodox Church, as far as I know - does not teach the assumption of the Mother of God, all end ever Virgin Mary as a dogmatic postulate.

[Epiphanygirl]

Where did this come from??

The Church never said she did not die. Only that she was assumed into Heaven.
Meaning when she died, Christ took her whole being to Heaven.

Some suppose she didn't die, but the Church never said that was the case.

:sigh: Now what eoe said was really an assumption!!!^_^