RCC De Fide Dogma: The Assumption of Mary

.

The De Fide Dogma:


In the singular, individual RC Denomination it has been de fide Dogma since November 1, 1950 that Mary, "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".

This doctrine was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 by his exercising "papal infallibility" ( a declared de fide dogma of the RC Denomination itself in 1870). It was never declared such by any Ecumenical Council or even any little denominational gathering - it was a declaration of one man - RC Pope Pious X11.



In the East and in Protestantism:


It should be noted that the Eastern Orthodox Church embrace a similar view which they call the Dormition of the Theotokos, but with two noteworthy differences: The EOC embraces this as pious opinion not as de fide dogma. And in the East, there is the embrace that Mary died first but in the singular, individual RC Denomination, the singular man Pious X11 purposely left this issue open. The essential belief is the same.... the status is not.

In Protestantism, there is no dogma (or even official teaching) on this matter in any Protestant denomination (for or against); in Protestantism there is official silence on this (as of course is the position of Scripture, Mary, Jesus and all the Apostles). There are a FEW (mostly in Anglicanism) that like the Orthodox personally hold to this belief but as adiaphora - a permitted view but not a mandated view, the rejection of which leaves ones salvation in question. At MOST, Protestants embrace this as an abiblical view regarded as adiaphoron (neither mandated nor forbidden) although it seems the overwhelming majority of Protestants simply follow Mary, Scripture and that Apostles in silence on this.



Is it True? Necessary?


The individual Pious Xii in 1950 offered nothing to show this opinion of his was true. Or biblical. Or important. Nor did he indicate that it mattered if it was true. But suddenly this view secured imposed de fide dogma status.

My Catholic teachers defended this view as de fide dogma of highest certainty and necessity possible by noting that her body has never been found. This, they noted, proves this view to be True and Necessary to the very highest level possible.



History:


Of course, we have no mention of this from Mary or Jesus or any of the Apostles or in Scripture.

The first known historic personal comment related to this is a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not and rejecting the idea of any assumption. However, we do find a statement to the contrary coming much later in 490. By the Seventh Century, at least personal opinions concerning the "assumption" were common. By the ninth century, it was a fairly universal personal opinion. However, none showed it to be true and none insisted it was de fide dogma.

It was declared Dogma by the individual Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, by virtue of the claim of the RCC that the Pope of the RCC is "infallible" (and thus unaccountable) and whatever he himself says (ex officio) is to be docilicly swallowed whole.




What is the documentation that this view is true? Necessary? As a matter of highest importance, necessity and certainty possible? What shows that it is TRUE? IMPORTANT, necessary to the highest level possible?

What is your evaluation of this declaration of the "pope" of the individual RC Denomination on November 1, 1950?




Thank you!



- Josiah




.

Regarding it's support in the RCC.

The declaration in the current Official Catechism of the RC Denomination (966) offers no support whatsoever for the truth or the necessity of this.

Again, what we were taught as the support is that the physical body of Mary has never been found (it was claimed). This, they noted, proves that it is a matter of highest certainty possible and greatest importance possible that Mary was assumed - body and soul - into heaven at her death (or was it undeath?). Not even that is given in the Catechism. IMO, this doesn't prove that. Indeed, I have a great uncle (or maybe great-great uncle) who served as an officer on a submarine during WW II. Suddenly, the sub seemed to just disappear..... it and its crew were never heard from again. For a time, my relative was listed as "missing in action" (like all the crew on that sub.... indeed, like the sub itself) but this was soon changed to died (not because there was any evidence of that but to resolve some financial and legal issues). IMO, this simply means that this relative's body has not been found - it is not proof that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible that he arose - body and soul - into heaven upon his death (or undeath if he is still alive). And of course, in the Sixth Century, how would they know if her body existed somewhere - they didn't have DNA tests back then. IMO, this just was not an apology that rose to the level of the claim. But of course, that's just my conclusion.

None of my Catholic teachers were able tell me why this view is important .... much less of greatest importance possible. None even tried. I asked if rejecting this view after November 1, 1950 means one is ergo going to hell. The response was (and I think this is a verbatim quote), "to knowingly reject this is to be a heretic and there are no heretics in heaven." Of course, this wouldn't apply to any before November 1, 1950 (since it wasn't dogma before that) so many who rejected this might be in heaven (if they died before November 1, 1950) and some maybe not. But I never could get anything on why THIS view is of such extreme importance.

Unlike another Marian dogma, this one is never viewed as disrespectful to Mary and seems to be considerably less contraversial than the older ones. Nonetheless, IMO, since it is divisive and since it has just recently been made De Fide Dogma, it is good to defend such to the level claimed (truth should matter.... even when it's about Mary?). Few Protestants argue this point, only that there is nothing to support it (at least to the level now claimed by the individual RC Denomination) and the greater probability that she died, was buried and her soul arose to heaven (as with all believers) and the desire to embrace the silence of Mary, the Apostles and Scripture on this. Personally, this isn't anything I loose any sleep over (so I DO reject it as De Fide Dogma - one more reason why I cannot be Roman Catholic). I don't care much if people want to embrace it (or deny it) - doesn't seem to make any difference either way. It's just, IMO, the discussion needs to not show disrespect for Mary.



What's your opinion?



- Josiah




.

Another point (in this post # 3).....

Our Catholic teachers stressed to us that the individual RC Denomination never declares anything to be dogma unless "great heresy" is at stake, it is essential to do so in order to repudiate horrible heresies in the particular matter. Okay. I asked what "horrible heresy" was all the rage in 1950 that mandated that Pope Pius XII take it upon himself to personally declare this? As De Fide Dogma? What popular "horrible heresy" involving how Mary got to heaven is denounced and condemned by declared his opinion and making it de fide Dogma - a matter of highest importance, necessity and certainty possible? No one could answer. Only to repeat that the Roman Catholic Church never declares anything to be dogma unless it is absolutely essential to do so in order to repudiate horrible heresy in that regard.


See the opening post.



Thank you!


- Josiah

For 66 years, the singular individual RC Denomination has insisted that this is TRUE as a matter of GREATEST IMPORTANCE and NECESSITY of affirming possible.

Does it have anything to document that? That it's TRUE? To the level CLAIMED?

Does truth matter in the RC Denomination (at least when it comes to Mary)? Does it matter in the RC Denomination what it insists (or is it itself alone exempt)?


????????



- Josiah

Yeah, Catholics tend to RUN from this de fide Dogma (1950)

Lämmchen said:

It does bother me when there is no biblical proof on something to make a huge claim and force it to be a part of agreed upon doctrine to be a member of the congregation.

Click to expand...

What I've typically seen is not only NOTHING to substantiate this DE FIDE DOGMA (1950) - a point of highest importance, certainty and necessity of embrace possible (biblical or otherwise) but Catholics usually RUN from it. I've probably started threads identical to this a dozen times or so at various websites, I can't remember even one of them where any Catholic posted - at all. Same thing with the second newest unique RCC De Fide Dogma - the INFALLIBILITY of the individual bishop of the Diocese of Rome for the individual RC Denomination (1870 for that one) - never have gotten any Catholic to even acknowledge the De Fide Dogma. If it's the highest certainty possible.... it should be easy to confirm as TRUE, perhaps? If it's the HIGHEST NECESSITY of believe possible - it should be super easy to show why, perhaps? Instead, we get what you see here (even in forums much larger than this). Now, the Mary Had No Sex EVER dogma - we get LOTS of stuff until it's finally shown none of it actually supports the teaching AT ALL - to the level claimed or otherwise, then those threads are abandoned by the Catholics, too. The very things that make Catholics, well, Catholics theologically are the very things they seem to run away from. I've found that curious.

Good to hear from you, however, Lamm....



- Josiah

Lämmchen said:

It does bother me when there is no biblical proof on something to make a huge claim and force it to be a part of agreed upon doctrine to be a member of the congregation.

Click to expand...

Yes. I think even most Catholics would likely agree that this new (November 1, 1950) de fide dogma is rather baseless: there is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or early Tradition to substantiate it. And I think most would admit it's a pretty meaningless teaching - not really having any point or application. Yet it was made DE FIDE DOGMA directly by the RCC's Bishop in Rome (NOT by any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils) on November 1, 1950. De Fide Dogma is declared with two purposes: positive (to affirm a necessariy belief) and negatively (to condemn and anathmatize those who do not affirm it as de fide dogma) - it is a move to divide Christians, separate brothers and sisters. I asked one of my Catholic teachers if one rejecting this as dogma meant they'd therefore go to Hell, the response was: "To reject this is to be a heretic, and heretics don't go to heaven."


Often, the "problem" is not simply variant opinions. But when one declares a late theory of SELF as a necessary DOGMA used to divide Christianity then we have a whole other enchilada. I don't deny that this view of Mary predates November 1, 1950.... and a version of it is found in Eastern Orthodoxy too. I know that. But before November 1, 1950 and still in the EOC, it's not de fide dogma, it's was (and in the EOC still isn't) mandated and is not used negatively or divisively and no sense of denying this is a ticket to hell. IF the RCC left this as a pious opinion that was likely first invented CENTURIES after Mary no longer was on Earth (much as it is in the EOC) - few (if any) would have any problem with it: it's just an opinion (however passionately embraced). But it was made de fide dogma - declared to be a matter, an opinion, of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible (and yes, to knowingly deny makes one a heretic and heretics don't go to heaven). IMO, it thus should have pretty solid confirmation! Pretty solid documentation (not just: I currently say this so I currently say this). And how ironic for a denomination that for the past 50 years has CLAIMED to want to promote unity rather than divisiveness such as in what it did on November 1, 1950. BTW, some Catholics think yet another new, divisive, De Fide Dogma is about to be made any time now: The Co-Redemptrix of Mary, that Mary is the Co-Redeemer along with Jesus. It hasn't happened yet and may not happen with this RCC Bishop of Rome, but it is generally expected, increasing the division.


Thank you!


Pax Christi


- Josiah

MoreCoffee said:

In the Orthodox churches the doctrine is referred to under the name Κοίμησις Θεοτόκου, Koímēsis - the dormition of the God-bearer - and Catholics speak of the assumption [into heaven] of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The teaching is very ancient.

Click to expand...

Where it is not de fide dogma. Read the opening post.

Yes, the BELIEF dates to 490 AD at the earliest (earlier Tradition is the opposite). But the issue is NOT whether a man came up with this BELIEF in 377 AD and ONE single, individual, unique denomination made it De Fide Dogma in 1950.... the issue is: Is it true to the level the one denomination - the RCC - claims since 1950 that it is?