I do not mean to confuse the issue but I am wondering if someone would be able to explain His Grace Bishop Youssef's answer to this question:
Question: Is St. Mary's body and spirit in Heaven or Paradise?
Answer: St. Mary is in Paradise. No one including St. Mary will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before the Day of Judgment. Because of her position as the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, God honored her by the assumption of her body to Paradise so it would not decay on earth.
I am not claiming His Grace as an original source and in this answer he does not reference other sources. However, he indicates that St. Mary is in Paradise, does anyone know why his viewpoint differs from Fr. Tadros and Fr. Athanasius?
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=69.msg158337#msg158337 date=1343760318] I don't know. I haven't time to source the original Coptic texts.
That wasn't really the point I was quoting these texts for. Don't forget that in formal English worship does not mean the adoration due only to God. This is why judges are 'Your Worship'. In English the word derives from the Old English meaning 'worthy of honour'. Thank you. :)
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158305#msg158305 date=1343689620] [quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158301#msg158301 date=1343684419] Imikael, I have asked you to move on from Fr Tadors, not because I thought I was wrong,but because you are not willing to accept it. But to answer your question, yes I do think Fr Tadros is speaking about St Mary's glorified state.
I take it you mean by St Mary's glorified state that she is resurrected.
If that is really what you read into it, then there is no need to continue the discussion. If you simply twist the words to fit an idea in your mind then there is no way we will come to an agreement.
Needles, to say that St. Mary's resurrection is a heresy founded on De Obitu S. Dominae an apocryphal writing.
You side with whatever suits you, I will side with the authentic Church teaching and with Metropolitan Bishoy.
imikael,I give up and I feel sorry for having thought I was talking to someone honest!! You have NO CREDIBLE CHURCH SOURCES to back up your false claim, PERIOD.
You have tried every possible means to AVOID answering the simple questions I posed by dancing around or pretending not to understand. Ignorance is not a Sin, but deliberate mis/dis-information is!
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you do not have the RIGHT to tell us that our handed down holy traditions and church leaders are WRONG and HERETICAL and you are RIGHT! Also DO NOT tell us that Emperor Constantine is not a SAINT, this is not for you to decide! Please STOP your nonsenses! I am done with this thread.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158342#msg158342 date=1343761521] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158305#msg158305 date=1343689620] [quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158301#msg158301 date=1343684419] Imikael, I have asked you to move on from Fr Tadors, not because I thought I was wrong,but because you are not willing to accept it. But to answer your question, yes I do think Fr Tadros is speaking about St Mary's glorified state.
I take it you mean by St Mary's glorified state that she is resurrected.
If that is really what you read into it, then there is no need to continue the discussion. If you simply twist the words to fit an idea in your mind then there is no way we will come to an agreement.
Needles, to say that St. Mary's resurrection is a heresy founded on De Obitu S. Dominae an apocryphal writing.
You side with whatever suits you, I will side with the authentic Church teaching and with Metropolitan Bishoy.
imikael,I give up and I feel sorry for having thought I was talking to someone honest!! You have NO CREDIBLE CHURCH SOURCES to back up your false claim, PERIOD.
You have tried every possible means to AVOID answering the simple questions I posed by dancing around or pretending not to understand. Ignorance is not a Sin, but deliberate mis/dis-information is!
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you do not have the RIGHT to tell us that our handed down holy traditions and church leaders are WRONG and HERETICAL and you are RIGHT! Also DO NOT tell us that Emperor Constantine is not a SAINT, this is not for you to decide! Please STOP your nonsenses! I am done with this thread.
Is this best you can up with.
You are the one who made the claim that Fr. Tadros agrees with the heresy that in the booklet Fr. Athanasius is circulating.
Yet I have showed you from that same book that this is not the case.
Then you wanted to switch topics without replying to my questions.
If this what you call dishonesty then congratulations on your conclusions.
A heresy is a heresy no matter how much you pretend it is not a heresy.
I do not mean to confuse the issue but I am wondering if someone would be able to explain His Grace Bishop Youssef's answer to this question:
Question: Is St. Mary's body and spirit in Heaven or Paradise?
Answer: St. Mary is in Paradise. No one including St. Mary will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before the Day of Judgment. Because of her position as the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, God honored her by the assumption of her body to Paradise so it would not decay on earth.
I am not claiming His Grace as an original source and in this answer he does not reference other sources. However, he indicates that St. Mary is in Paradise, does anyone know why his viewpoint differs from Fr. Tadros and Fr. Athanasius?
Thank you for your patience with me.
emiles
Fr. Athansius is circulating a book that has an unauthentic, unauthoritative sermon by Pope Tawodosius that says that St Mary's soul was united with her body and that she is in the Kingdom of God.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=69.msg158333#msg158333 date=1343753521] You miss the point imikhail.
Of course the author is not Evodius of Rome living in the first century, but this IS quite clearly a Coptic homily used on the feasts of our Lady. This is how it has been preserved.
You have shown that Evodius is not the author, not a difficult task, but you have not shown that this homily was not used in the Church. Indeed the fact of its preservation shows that it was used in the Church. A homily that no-one was interested in would not be preserved, or indeed even written down.
You have not refuted anything. It is not enough for you just to insist that something is the way you wish it to be. You must show it by evidence. The evidence points to the fact that this homily, written to be used on the feasts of our Lady and preserved in at least 8 manuscripts in Coptic was indeed used, and popular. It would not be preserved in 8 known manuscripts unless people considered it important and useful and went to the cost and effort of duplicating it.
Then show how was it used, when and where (what liturgical book contained it).
You have done exactly what Fr. Athanasius did. He printed a sermon and is claiming that this is the teaching of the Church.
Is it enough to have a sermon in Coptic that bears a big name? Does that automatically makes it authentic, used in the Church?
It would not be preserved in 8 known manuscripts unless people considered it important and useful and went to the cost and effort of duplicating it.
Seriously?
Then all the preserved Gnostic manuscripts written in Coptic do have the right teaching. After all if they were not, then people would not have preserved them.
Dear imikhail, After kissing your hands (as you have made yourself a figure of authority), I see no point in anyone continuing this discussion with you. I just want to say that I find it comical that you have decided what is authentic and what isn't! What would theologians like Fr. Athanasius Iskander and Fr. Peter know about the authenticity of the father's teachings compared to great scholars like yourself!? (sarcasm, just in case you didn't pick up on it).
Also, the last time I checked, Metropolitan Anba Bishoy was still Orthodox.
When was the last time you checked? Was it before or after you read any of his writings? If the latter then check again...
If everyone had your authority in deciding which writings were authentic and which ones were not we would be able to prove all our points so easily. What is the point of studying patristics when people are just willing to throwout any writing to prove their point. So much for Orthodoxy!
I do apologize for being an offense but I think this discussion has turned into nothing but sheer ignorance.
please forgive me and may the prayers of the holy Mother of God Saint Mary, who is seated at the right hand of her Son, be with us all!
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=69.msg158337#msg158337 date=1343760318] I don't know. I haven't time to source the original Coptic texts.
That wasn't really the point I was quoting these texts for. Don't forget that in formal English worship does not mean the adoration due only to God. This is why judges are 'Your Worship'. In English the word derives from the Old English meaning 'worthy of honour'.
I found the Coptic text online. It was originally published by Paul A. Lagarde in Aegyptiaca, Göttingen, 1883. It can be found here on page 61, section 18.
The word used is not Latria, it is ouwst which means both "worship" and "bow down in reverence" in Coptic. I will say the author (not Evodius) takes a Catholic co-redemptix, pro-Roman, pro-Petrine position in most of the text. This may be a Coptic text written by a Catholic Christian who knew Coptic. It is unlikely but possible. It is more likely that this is a Coptic translation of a Latin (or maybe a Greek) text. Regardless of how it was translated into Coptic, it had some value for someone to translate it. It is likely the value lied in the extreme veneration of Mary, a characteristic commonly found in Coptic hagiographical and literary texts.
The word used is not Latria, it is ouwst which means both "worship" and "bow down in reverence" in Coptic. I will say the author (not Evodius) takes a Catholic co-redemptix, pro-Roman, pro-Petrine position in most of the text. This may be a Coptic text written by a Catholic Christian who knew Coptic. It is unlikely but possible. It is more likely that this is a Coptic translation of a Latin (or maybe a Greek) text.
It's not surprising to me. Nearly all Roman Catholic theology comes directly from the Alexandrian (and Coptic) school of thought. it's just that we in the Coptic Orthodox church got so accustomed to Antiochian theology in the polemics against the Catholics (polemics that derive from the Eastern Orthodox originally), that we've completely lost touch with the Alexandrian theology. Then, when we come across them, in our surprise we attribute it to the omnipresent Mr. Forgery.
[quote author=Dimas link=topic=69.msg158347#msg158347 date=1343768667] Dear imikhail, After kissing your hands (as you have made yourself a figure of authority),
I have pity on you if you are going around kissing people's hands just because they are of authority. Do you really do that? Professors, deans, police officers, ...
Stop being childish and address the issue.
I see no point in anyone continuing this discussion with you.
Then why did you bother to write?
I just want to say that I find it comical that you have decided what is authentic and what isn't!
I am glad I am entertaining you.
What would theologians like Fr. Athanasius Iskander and Fr. Peter know about the authenticity of the father's teachings compared to great scholars like yourself!? (sarcasm, just in case you didn't pick up on it).
I will leave you to answer this question yourself ... if you can
I do apologize for being an offense but I think this discussion has turned into nothing but sheer ignorance.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=69.msg158348#msg158348 date=1343769162] [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=69.msg158337#msg158337 date=1343760318] I don't know. I haven't time to source the original Coptic texts.
That wasn't really the point I was quoting these texts for. Don't forget that in formal English worship does not mean the adoration due only to God. This is why judges are 'Your Worship'. In English the word derives from the Old English meaning 'worthy of honour'.
I found the Coptic text online. It was originally published by Paul A. Lagarde in Aegyptiaca, Göttingen, 1883. It can be found here on page 61, section 18.
The word used is not Latria, it is ouwst which means both "worship" and "bow down in reverence" in Coptic. I will say the author (not Evodius) takes a Catholic co-redemptix, pro-Roman, pro-Petrine position in most of the text. This may be a Coptic text written by a Catholic Christian who knew Coptic. It is unlikely but possible. It is more likely that this is a Coptic translation of a Latin (or maybe a Greek) text. Regardless of how it was translated into Coptic, it had some value for someone to translate it. It is likely the value lied in the extreme veneration of Mary, a characteristic commonly found in Coptic hagiographical and literary texts.
Thanks so much Reminkimi for weighing on this text. It agrees with the analysis found in the Coptic Encyclopedia.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=69.msg158335#msg158335 date=1343759269] How did Met. Bishoy react to Fr. Athanasius' book? This is not the first time HE has taught something controversial. A while ago, I skimmed through an article on his website where he criticized Max Michele for denying that we inherit the guilt of Adam at birth. As much as Max is a heretic, he is right in saying we do not inherit Adam's guilt. Unfortunately, this Augustinian innovation is all too common in the Coptic Church nowadays, even among Clergy and Bishops.
+Irini nem ehmot
Dear Severian,
I cannot answer on his reaction, but I am aware that there are clergy and lay that are responding to some of his teachings like on inherent guilt/"Original Sin", as well as his views on Judas' participation in Eucharist etc...
May God have mercy on us all. I really think discussion with imikhail right now is more vain than it is spiritual. I also fear for the poor people who read this thread with an honest inquiry into differences between us and the Catholics, and just see a lot of ignorance and sarcasm mixed in with genuine knowledge and sincerity (all seem to be present on the board). I know that if I was an outsider, I would be monumentally saddened.
Perhaps for a side discussion: how did we get to talk about Theological matters like we're talking about basketball? When did we lose the spirit of adoration when talking about heaven and the saints? How is it that we can throw the word 'heresy' out so easily, not weighing how deeply a divide it puts a person with our Creator?
[quote author=fortunatus link=topic=69.msg158361#msg158361 date=1343786938] [quote author=Severian link=topic=69.msg158335#msg158335 date=1343759269] How did Met. Bishoy react to Fr. Athanasius' book? This is not the first time HE has taught something controversial. A while ago, I skimmed through an article on his website where he criticized Max Michele for denying that we inherit the guilt of Adam at birth. As much as Max is a heretic, he is right in saying we do not inherit Adam's guilt. Unfortunately, this Augustinian innovation is all too common in the Coptic Church nowadays, even among Clergy and Bishops.
+Irini nem ehmot
Dear Severian,
I cannot answer on his reaction, but I am aware that there are clergy and lay that are responding to some of his teachings like on inherent guilt/"Original Sin", as well as his views on Judas' participation in Eucharist etc...
May God have mercy on us all. I really think discussion with imikhail right now is more vain than it is spiritual. I also fear for the poor people who read this thread with an honest inquiry into differences between us and the Catholics, and just see a lot of ignorance and sarcasm mixed in with genuine knowledge and sincerity (all seem to be present on the board). I know that if I was an outsider, I would be monumentally saddened.
Perhaps for a side discussion: how did we get to talk about Theological matters like we're talking about basketball? When did we lose the spirit of adoration when talking about heaven and the saints? How is it that we can throw the word 'heresy' out so easily, not weighing how deeply a divide it puts a person with our Creator?
Pray for me, fortunatus Likewise, please pray for me. :)
It is good that people are responding to his opinions. Did he receive any formal training in Orthodox theology before becoming a Metropolitan?
It makes me very uncomfortable and uneasy that you say that this is a heresy. Fr. Tadros and Fr. Athanasius are quoting a valuable source, while you are quoting Anba Bishoy -- who claims to be a modern day 'theologian'. Some of his teachings are not in line with the fathers, and if you choose to believe them, that's your choice. This does not give you the right nor the authority to claim that what the great father St. Theodosius has said is a heresy. I'm not sure on what grounds you are claiming that this is a heresy.
You asked Dimas to "enlighten us"... Well you know, imikhail, it seems that many people have tried to enlighten you providing you with valuable sources, and you are choosing to ignore them and remain in the dark. Again, that is your choice.
It's obvious that you are not here to learn, but rather to teach all of us. I wouldn't mind that, but please use credible sources, and do not claim teachings on behalf of the church. Orthodoxy has been and shall remain unchanged, and that's the beauty of it. Please refrain from speaking on behalf of the church unless you can provide us with credible sources.
As fortunatus has said, this discussion with you is more vain than it is spiritual. May St. Mary forgive us, and may she intercede on our behalf.
OK, how about this, imikhail. Provide Patristic sources to prove your claims. One cannot be Orthodox without holding steadfast to the teachings of the Fathers. Can you cite any Fathers who support your view?
Also, what is your view on the Augustinian doctrine of inherited guilt/original sin?
It makes me very uncomfortable and uneasy that you say that this is a heresy.
Dear Mansour,
Why is it uneasy and uncomfortable? May be because it shakes a fundamental belief or an idea you held for a long time.
I understand where you are coming from. Hopefully you turn this uneasiness and uncomfortablness into something positive through research into the true faith of the Church.
Fr. Tadros and Fr. Athanasius are quoting a valuable source
You are lumping the two together and that is not fair. Please, read my previous posts, in particular post #128.
while you are quoting Anba Bishoy
Where in all my posts did I quote Anba Bishoy? This comment tells me that you have not read any of my posts. So, I ask you to do so as to avoid making false claims.
This does not give you the right nor the authority to claim that what the great father St. Theodosius has said is a heresy. I'm not sure on what grounds you are claiming that this is a heresy.
Again, it seems you have not read my posts. Otherwise you would have not asked this question.
Please, read my posts in particular 132, 136, and 140
You asked Dimas to "enlighten us"... Well you know, imikhail, it seems that many people have tried to enlighten you providing you with valuable sources,
Can you please do me a favor and summarize these sources?
Is it the alleged sermon by Tawodosious?
It's obvious that you are not here to learn, but rather to teach all of us. I wouldn't mind that, but please use credible sources, and do not claim teachings on behalf of the church.
The scriptures are not credible?
How about the readings of the Church? Would they be acceptable to you?
What about the liturgical prayers? Would they meet your standard?
As fortunatus has said, this discussion with you is more vain than it is spiritual.
Have you reached that conclusion before you wrote your post? If so, why did you bother?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=69.msg158372#msg158372 date=1343794685] OK, how about this, imikhail. Provide Patristic sources to prove your claims. One cannot be Orthodox without holding steadfast to the teachings of the Fathers. Can you cite any Fathers who support your view?
Dear Severian,
None of the early Church Fathers spoke of her resurrection and her inheritance of the Kingdom of God.
This idea, of her resurrection and inheritance of the kingdom, developed after Chalcedon and all the authors who wrote about it were either Latin or Chalecedonians.
The Orient tradition (Oriental Orthodox) is that only her body ascended to heaven while her soul is in Paradise awaiting the general resurrection after the 2nd coming. This agrees with the readings, prayers of the Church as well as the scriptures.
Also, what is your view on the Augustinian doctrine of inherited guilt/original sin?
This topic is for another thread. Please, create one if you wish.
I don't know if your soul has been reunited to your body or not. I know you your soul was taken by Christ into the bliss of Paradise, where you are the Lady and Queen of us all. I know your body was also assumed up into the sky. Where your pure body is kept or whether your soul is reunited with it, I do not know. I know it is not too much to imagine that the Lord granted you, His Mother, the glorious resurrection before the rest of humanity. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. In eihter case, whether you are in your body or out of your body,
Please intercede on our behalf and ask the Lord to forgive us our sins and keep our names in the Book of Life and grant us to be immediately in Christ's presence, in your presence, and the presence of the saints immediately upon our repose and attend to each of us at that moment, that we may be safely taken to that blessed abode, full of life and joy, even while we are out of the body. Bless are you, St. Mary.
[quote author=metouro link=topic=69.msg158377#msg158377 date=1343838802] Holy Mother of God, Saint Mary.
I don't know if your soul has been reunited to your body or not. I know you your soul was taken by Christ into the bliss of Paradise, where you are the Lady and Queen of us all. I know your body was also assumed up into the sky. Where your pure body is kept or whether your soul is reunited with it, I do not know. I know it is not too much to imagine that the Lord granted you, His Mother, the glorious resurrection before the rest of humanity. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. In eihter case, whether you are in your body or out of your body,
Why all these questions? Just wait till Aug 22 and the Church readings will tell you that it is only her body that was assumed to heaven.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=69.msg158372#msg158372 date=1343794685] OK, how about this, imikhail. Provide Patristic sources to prove your claims. One cannot be Orthodox without holding steadfast to the teachings of the Fathers. Can you cite any Fathers who support your view? Let me try to give an unbiased response.
First, I will reiterate what Fr Peter said. They are multiple ancient manuscripts of the Virgin Mary's Assumption. These include: : Pseudo-John the Theologian, The Dormition of the Holy Mother of God (fifth century); Pseudo-Melito of Sardis, The Passing of the Blessed Mary (fifth century); Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary the Mother of God (fifth/sixth century); Pseudo-Evodius of Rome, Discourse on the Dormition of Mary (sixth century); Theodosius of Alexandria, Discourse on the Dormition (sixth century); and Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea, The Passing of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (seventh century). These all talk about the Virgin's assumption. There are also other apocryphal texts that speak of the resurrection of the body and soul into a glorified state. SeeThe History of Joseph the Carpenter, chapters 30 & 31.
Epiphanius of Salamis (403 AD) preferred to keep silent on the question of Mary's death, burial and corruption. He didn't deny the assumption or resurrection but he didn't affirm it either.
Who did affirm it? Germanius of Constantinople (733 AD), Andrew of Crete (740 AD), John Damascene (750 AD). They all affirm Mary died physically, and resurrected (ie, her body reunited with her soul) and she dwells in honor in a "heavenly tabernacle".
In addition, John Damascene gives a history of Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. "Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem advised the Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria that their wish to have the bodily remains of the Virgin Mary was impossible, for when her tomb had been opened at the request of the Apostle Thomas, it was found to be empty. The Apostles then collectively concluded that Mary’s body had been transported to heaven by the will of her divine son."
"It is also reported in the ‘Lives of the Popes’ (Liber Pontificalis) that at some point in the century following Chalcedon, the emperor Mauritius (who died in 603) ordered that the feast of the Assumption should be kept on the 15th of August. Since it refers to the event as an established solemnity, the instruction was evidently directed at a devotion already widely practised.
Archaeologically, there is a sarcophagus in the Crypt of Santa Engracia at Saragossa (a corrupted form of Caesar Augusta), Aragon (Spain) with a wall mural of the Virgin ascending up with the 12 disciples. It is dated to 312/313 AD. Legend has it that St James built the first Church there when the Virgin Mary helped him and gave him a wooden figure of herself. This occurred before St James returned to Jerusalem and died in 44 AD. This doesn't prove the Virgin Mary resurrected to heaven. It does, however, confirm that the disciples were at the dormition and assumption of the Virgin.
There are 3 possible understandings of what the Virgin glorified state is and what heaven is. a) the corpse of Mary theory: the Virgin died and was buried but her body was never corrupted. (This is seen in a lot of Coptic hagiography including St Sidhom Bishay) b) the living woman Mary, who thereby was saved from death: This theory suggests the Virgin never really died but she is a living, immortal human to this day, just like Enoch. c) the resurrected woman, who had suffered death and then, at some point, was restored to life: This theory suggest the Virgin was resurrected and she is somewhere. It is obvious that the first theory cannot be accurate otherwise there would be "relics" of the Virgin. (Unless no one knows where she is buried, like St Antony). What is consistent across all patristic writings from Ignatius to Origen to Athanasius and on is that St Mary is not like any other human (whether St Antony or Enoch). It seems somewhat illogical and contradictory to piety to conclude that her body met the same fate as other humans. The second also doesn't make sense since none of the fathers ever believed in this theory. Enoch must return with Elijah and be killed by the Antichrist as it says in Revelation 11:3. No one has ever claimed the Virgin Mary must return to die. This only leaves us with the third theory. The scant writings of pre-Chalcedonian fathers at least do not claim St Mary cannot be resurrected. They left the door open for the possibility of the Assumption and the Resurrection of the body.
I will conclude by stating since we can't define heaven as a spatial location, how can we say the Virgin's body went to heaven while her soul went somewhere else? We know from Hebrews 9:24 that Christ alone entered heaven in the presence of God as mediator and high priest. In Hebrews 12:27, even heaven will shake so that the unshakable "heaven" remains. Is the heavens in Hebrews 9:24 the same as Hebrews 12:27? Yes. Did the Virgin Mary go there after her dormition? No. There is another heaven, which we cannot locate spatially that will be shaken as described in Revelation 21:1. It is therefore entire plausible that the Virgin Mary ascended into the heaven that will pass away, described in Revelation 1-21:1. Then in the second coming, all men resurrected will enter the new heaven described in Revelation 21:2 onward and Hebrews. This is only my opinion, but I believe it conforms to Orthodoxy (and not just Oriental Orthodoxy).
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158379#msg158379 date=1343843200] [quote author=metouro link=topic=69.msg158377#msg158377 date=1343838802] Holy Mother of God, Saint Mary.
I don't know if your soul has been reunited to your body or not. I know you your soul was taken by Christ into the bliss of Paradise, where you are the Lady and Queen of us all. I know your body was also assumed up into the sky. Where your pure body is kept or whether your soul is reunited with it, I do not know. I know it is not too much to imagine that the Lord granted you, His Mother, the glorious resurrection before the rest of humanity. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. In eihter case, whether you are in your body or out of your body,
Why all these questions? Just wait till Aug 22 and the Church readings will tell you that it is only her body that was assumed to heaven.
None of the scripture readings talk about the Virgin Mary's death and assumption. I assume you are referring to the Synaxarium of Mesra 16. It is true that the synaxarium speaks of the Virgin's soul lifted to her son, while her body was placed in a tomb. It includes the apocryphal story of a Jew who prevented her burial and his hands fell off. This story has been extended to identify this Jew as the paralytic man who was healed after 38 years by Jesus. The synaxarium story continues with the apocryphal story of Thomas requesting to see the body in the tomb and when they opened the tomb they didn't find her body because her body ascended shortly after her burial. Nothing in this synaxarium story implies a resurrection of the body until the end where it states: "The Lord had promised his pure apostles that they would see her in flesh another time. They were waiting for the fulfillment of this truthful promise, until the sixteenth day of the month of Misra, when the promise of seeing her was fulfilled. They saw her sitting on the right hand of her Son and her Lord, surrounded by the angelic Host, as David prophesied and said, "At your right hand stands the queen." (Psalm 45:9) "
You will notice that she appeared in flesh, not just as a soul that temporarily assumed a body like angels. Stating her soul went to heaven while her body is in Paradise makes St Mary no different than Moses. Even Moses appeared on Mt Tabor resurrected body and soul, not just a lifeless body temporarily made alive that died again. This synaxarium story, at the very least, assumes a resurrection of the Virgin's body and soul and places her in heaven at the right hand of Christ in heaven. However, like I said in my previous post, this heaven is not the heaven of Hebrews 9:24 and 12:27, where Christ entered as mediator and high priest in an unshakable heaven. What purpose would St Mary have in this heaven? Would she be mediating to the Mediator Christ before the Mediator mediates to God? No. St Mary went to "heaven" but not the unshakable heaven. She sits at the right hand of her Son's throne in the "other" heaven. It's all very confusing. But within this framework, everything fits.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=69.msg158385#msg158385 date=1343854876] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158379#msg158379 date=1343843200] [quote author=metouro link=topic=69.msg158377#msg158377 date=1343838802] Holy Mother of God, Saint Mary.
I don't know if your soul has been reunited to your body or not. I know you your soul was taken by Christ into the bliss of Paradise, where you are the Lady and Queen of us all. I know your body was also assumed up into the sky. Where your pure body is kept or whether your soul is reunited with it, I do not know. I know it is not too much to imagine that the Lord granted you, His Mother, the glorious resurrection before the rest of humanity. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. In eihter case, whether you are in your body or out of your body,
Why all these questions? Just wait till Aug 22 and the Church readings will tell you that it is only her body that was assumed to heaven.
None of the scripture readings talk about the Virgin Mary's death and assumption. I assume you are referring to the Synaxarium of Mesra 16. It is true that the synaxarium speaks of the Virgin's soul lifted to her son, while her body was placed in a tomb. It includes the apocryphal story of a Jew who prevented her burial and his hands fell off. This story has been extended to identify this Jew as the paralytic man who was healed after 38 years by Jesus. The synaxarium story continues with the apocryphal story of Thomas requesting to see the body in the tomb and when they opened the tomb they didn't find her body because her body ascended shortly after her burial. Nothing in this synaxarium story implies a resurrection of the body until the end where it states: "The Lord had promised his pure apostles that they would see her in flesh another time. They were waiting for the fulfillment of this truthful promise, until the sixteenth day of the month of Misra, when the promise of seeing her was fulfilled. They saw her sitting on the right hand of her Son and her Lord, surrounded by the angelic Host, as David prophesied and said, "At your right hand stands the queen." (Psalm 45:9) "
You will notice that she appeared in flesh, not just as a soul that temporarily assumed a body like angels. Stating her soul went to heaven while her body is in Paradise makes St Mary no different than Moses. Even Moses appeared on Mt Tabor resurrected body and soul, not just a lifeless body temporarily made alive that died again. This synaxarium story, at the very least, assumes a resurrection of the Virgin's body and soul and places her in heaven at the right hand of Christ in heaven. However, like I said in my previous post, this heaven is not the heaven of Hebrews 9:24 and 12:27, where Christ entered as mediator and high priest in an unshakable heaven. What purpose would St Mary have in this heaven? Would she be mediating to the Mediator Christ before the Mediator mediates to God? No. St Mary went to "heaven" but not the unshakable heaven. She sits at the right hand of her Son's throne in the "other" heaven. It's all very confusing. But within this framework, everything fits.
The bottom line is that the feast of Assumption in the COC is called the assumption of the BODY of St. Mary. Not her resurrection, not her inheritance of the Kingdom like this forged sermon of Tawodosius is trying to imply.
The soul of St Mary is in paradise like all the other saints waiting for th general resurrection. This is the faith of the Church and it agrees with her scriptures and her liturgical prayers.
I've been reading alot of these comments and I'm very disturbed by how some non Catholics are trying to explain Catholic beliefs. Some of you obviously have no clue what Catholics believe because you've gotten so many things wrong! Don't pretend you know things you don't know. Sad to say there are already many misconceptions about the Catholic church. Im not saying the Catholic church is perfect but no religion is. It appears to me though that most, if not all, religions teach two basic things...Love God and one another.
Comments
I do not mean to confuse the issue but I am wondering if someone would be able to explain His Grace Bishop Youssef's answer to this question:
Question: Is St. Mary's body and spirit in Heaven or Paradise?
Answer: St. Mary is in Paradise. No one including St. Mary will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before the Day of Judgment. Because of her position as the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, God honored her by the assumption of her body to Paradise so it would not decay on earth.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=921&catid=363
I am not claiming His Grace as an original source and in this answer he does not reference other sources. However, he indicates that St. Mary is in Paradise, does anyone know why his viewpoint differs from Fr. Tadros and Fr. Athanasius?
Thank you for your patience with me.
emiles
I don't know. I haven't time to source the original Coptic texts.
That wasn't really the point I was quoting these texts for. Don't forget that in formal English worship does not mean the adoration due only to God. This is why judges are 'Your Worship'. In English the word derives from the Old English meaning 'worthy of honour'.
Thank you. :)
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158301#msg158301 date=1343684419]
Imikael, I have asked you to move on from Fr Tadors, not because I thought I was wrong,but because you are not willing to accept it. But to answer your question, yes I do think Fr Tadros is speaking about St Mary's glorified state.
I take it you mean by St Mary's glorified state that she is resurrected.
If that is really what you read into it, then there is no need to continue the discussion. If you simply twist the words to fit an idea in your mind then there is no way we will come to an agreement.
Needles, to say that St. Mary's resurrection is a heresy founded on De Obitu S. Dominae an apocryphal writing.
You side with whatever suits you, I will side with the authentic Church teaching and with Metropolitan Bishoy.
imikael,I give up and I feel sorry for having thought I was talking to someone honest!! You have NO CREDIBLE CHURCH SOURCES to back up your false claim, PERIOD.
You have tried every possible means to AVOID answering the simple questions I posed by dancing around or pretending not to understand. Ignorance is not a Sin, but deliberate mis/dis-information is!
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you do not have the RIGHT to tell us that our handed down holy traditions and church leaders are WRONG and HERETICAL and you are RIGHT! Also DO NOT tell us that Emperor Constantine is not a SAINT, this is not for you to decide!
Please STOP your nonsenses! I am done with this thread.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158305#msg158305 date=1343689620]
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158301#msg158301 date=1343684419]
Imikael, I have asked you to move on from Fr Tadors, not because I thought I was wrong,but because you are not willing to accept it. But to answer your question, yes I do think Fr Tadros is speaking about St Mary's glorified state.
I take it you mean by St Mary's glorified state that she is resurrected.
If that is really what you read into it, then there is no need to continue the discussion. If you simply twist the words to fit an idea in your mind then there is no way we will come to an agreement.
Needles, to say that St. Mary's resurrection is a heresy founded on De Obitu S. Dominae an apocryphal writing.
You side with whatever suits you, I will side with the authentic Church teaching and with Metropolitan Bishoy.
imikael,I give up and I feel sorry for having thought I was talking to someone honest!! You have NO CREDIBLE CHURCH SOURCES to back up your false claim, PERIOD.
You have tried every possible means to AVOID answering the simple questions I posed by dancing around or pretending not to understand. Ignorance is not a Sin, but deliberate mis/dis-information is!
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you do not have the RIGHT to tell us that our handed down holy traditions and church leaders are WRONG and HERETICAL and you are RIGHT! Also DO NOT tell us that Emperor Constantine is not a SAINT, this is not for you to decide!
Please STOP your nonsenses! I am done with this thread.
Is this best you can up with.
You are the one who made the claim that Fr. Tadros agrees with the heresy that in the booklet Fr. Athanasius is circulating.
Yet I have showed you from that same book that this is not the case.
Then you wanted to switch topics without replying to my questions.
If this what you call dishonesty then congratulations on your conclusions.
A heresy is a heresy no matter how much you pretend it is not a heresy.
Greetings,
I do not mean to confuse the issue but I am wondering if someone would be able to explain His Grace Bishop Youssef's answer to this question:
Question: Is St. Mary's body and spirit in Heaven or Paradise?
Answer: St. Mary is in Paradise. No one including St. Mary will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before the Day of Judgment. Because of her position as the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, God honored her by the assumption of her body to Paradise so it would not decay on earth.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=921&catid=363
I am not claiming His Grace as an original source and in this answer he does not reference other sources. However, he indicates that St. Mary is in Paradise, does anyone know why his viewpoint differs from Fr. Tadros and Fr. Athanasius?
Thank you for your patience with me.
emiles
Fr. Athansius is circulating a book that has an unauthentic, unauthoritative sermon by Pope Tawodosius that says that St Mary's soul was united with her body and that she is in the Kingdom of God.
Here is the link to this booklet
http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/index.php/english/publications/sermon/defending-the-holy-virgin-mary
You miss the point imikhail.
Of course the author is not Evodius of Rome living in the first century, but this IS quite clearly a Coptic homily used on the feasts of our Lady. This is how it has been preserved.
You have shown that Evodius is not the author, not a difficult task, but you have not shown that this homily was not used in the Church. Indeed the fact of its preservation shows that it was used in the Church. A homily that no-one was interested in would not be preserved, or indeed even written down.
You have not refuted anything. It is not enough for you just to insist that something is the way you wish it to be. You must show it by evidence. The evidence points to the fact that this homily, written to be used on the feasts of our Lady and preserved in at least 8 manuscripts in Coptic was indeed used, and popular. It would not be preserved in 8 known manuscripts unless people considered it important and useful and went to the cost and effort of duplicating it.
Then show how was it used, when and where (what liturgical book contained it).
You have done exactly what Fr. Athanasius did. He printed a sermon and is claiming that this is the teaching of the Church.
Is it enough to have a sermon in Coptic that bears a big name? Does that automatically makes it authentic, used in the Church?
Seriously?
Then all the preserved Gnostic manuscripts written in Coptic do have the right teaching. After all if they were not, then people would not have preserved them.
After kissing your hands (as you have made yourself a figure of authority), I see no point in anyone continuing this discussion with you. I just want to say that I find it comical that you have decided what is authentic and what isn't! What would theologians like Fr. Athanasius Iskander and Fr. Peter know about the authenticity of the father's teachings compared to great scholars like yourself!? (sarcasm, just in case you didn't pick up on it). When was the last time you checked? Was it before or after you read any of his writings? If the latter then check again...
If everyone had your authority in deciding which writings were authentic and which ones were not we would be able to prove all our points so easily. What is the point of studying patristics when people are just willing to throwout any writing to prove their point. So much for Orthodoxy!
I do apologize for being an offense but I think this discussion has turned into nothing but sheer ignorance.
please forgive me and may the prayers of the holy Mother of God Saint Mary, who is seated at the right hand of her Son, be with us all!
I don't know. I haven't time to source the original Coptic texts.
That wasn't really the point I was quoting these texts for. Don't forget that in formal English worship does not mean the adoration due only to God. This is why judges are 'Your Worship'. In English the word derives from the Old English meaning 'worthy of honour'.
I found the Coptic text online. It was originally published by Paul A. Lagarde in Aegyptiaca, Göttingen, 1883. It can be found here on page 61, section 18.
eti `ere pencwtyr caji neman ancwtem `ehanhymnoc qen `p[ici. qen ]nou anjoust annau `eounis] `nharma `nouwini@ afi afouoh qen tenmy] eucwk qarof `nje ni,eroubim@ ere ]par;enoc e;ouab Maria hemci hijwf@ ecerouwini `ehote `vre nem piioh `nou`;ba `nkwb `ncop. anon de answpi qen ouho] anhei `ejen penho anwoust `mmoc@ ouoh accouten tecjij `ebol `ejwn tyrou@ accmou `eron ac] nan `n]hyryny. palin anouwst `mmoc ensop qen ounis] `nrasi....
The word used is not Latria, it is ouwst which means both "worship" and "bow down in reverence" in Coptic. I will say the author (not Evodius) takes a Catholic co-redemptix, pro-Roman, pro-Petrine position in most of the text. This may be a Coptic text written by a Catholic Christian who knew Coptic. It is unlikely but possible. It is more likely that this is a Coptic translation of a Latin (or maybe a Greek) text. Regardless of how it was translated into Coptic, it had some value for someone to translate it. It is likely the value lied in the extreme veneration of Mary, a characteristic commonly found in Coptic hagiographical and literary texts.
The word used is not Latria, it is ouwst which means both "worship" and "bow down in reverence" in Coptic. I will say the author (not Evodius) takes a Catholic co-redemptix, pro-Roman, pro-Petrine position in most of the text. This may be a Coptic text written by a Catholic Christian who knew Coptic. It is unlikely but possible. It is more likely that this is a Coptic translation of a Latin (or maybe a Greek) text.
It's not surprising to me. Nearly all Roman Catholic theology comes directly from the Alexandrian (and Coptic) school of thought. it's just that we in the Coptic Orthodox church got so accustomed to Antiochian theology in the polemics against the Catholics (polemics that derive from the Eastern Orthodox originally), that we've completely lost touch with the Alexandrian theology. Then, when we come across them, in our surprise we attribute it to the omnipresent Mr. Forgery.
Dear imikhail,
After kissing your hands (as you have made yourself a figure of authority),
I have pity on you if you are going around kissing people's hands
just because they are of authority. Do you really do that? Professors, deans, police officers, ...
Stop being childish and address the issue. Then why did you bother to write? I am glad I am entertaining you. I will leave you to answer this question yourself ... if you can Enlighten us ...
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=69.msg158337#msg158337 date=1343760318]
I don't know. I haven't time to source the original Coptic texts.
That wasn't really the point I was quoting these texts for. Don't forget that in formal English worship does not mean the adoration due only to God. This is why judges are 'Your Worship'. In English the word derives from the Old English meaning 'worthy of honour'.
I found the Coptic text online. It was originally published by Paul A. Lagarde in Aegyptiaca, Göttingen, 1883. It can be found here on page 61, section 18.
eti `ere pencwtyr caji neman ancwtem `ehanhymnoc qen `p[ici. qen ]nou anjoust annau `eounis] `nharma `nouwini@ afi afouoh qen tenmy] eucwk qarof `nje ni,eroubim@ ere ]par;enoc e;ouab Maria hemci hijwf@ ecerouwini `ehote `vre nem piioh `nou`;ba `nkwb `ncop. anon de answpi qen ouho] anhei `ejen penho anwoust `mmoc@ ouoh accouten tecjij `ebol `ejwn tyrou@ accmou `eron ac] nan `n]hyryny. palin anouwst `mmoc ensop qen ounis] `nrasi....
The word used is not Latria, it is ouwst which means both "worship" and "bow down in reverence" in Coptic. I will say the author (not Evodius) takes a Catholic co-redemptix, pro-Roman, pro-Petrine position in most of the text. This may be a Coptic text written by a Catholic Christian who knew Coptic. It is unlikely but possible. It is more likely that this is a Coptic translation of a Latin (or maybe a Greek) text. Regardless of how it was translated into Coptic, it had some value for someone to translate it. It is likely the value lied in the extreme veneration of Mary, a characteristic commonly found in Coptic hagiographical and literary texts.
Thanks so much Reminkimi for weighing on this text. It agrees with the analysis found in the Coptic Encyclopedia.
How did Met. Bishoy react to Fr. Athanasius' book? This is not the first time HE has taught something controversial. A while ago, I skimmed through an article on his website where he criticized Max Michele for denying that we inherit the guilt of Adam at birth. As much as Max is a heretic, he is right in saying we do not inherit Adam's guilt. Unfortunately, this Augustinian innovation is all too common in the Coptic Church nowadays, even among Clergy and Bishops.
+Irini nem ehmot
Dear Severian,
I cannot answer on his reaction, but I am aware that there are clergy and lay that are responding to some of his teachings like on inherent guilt/"Original Sin", as well as his views on Judas' participation in Eucharist etc...
May God have mercy on us all. I really think discussion with imikhail right now is more vain than it is spiritual. I also fear for the poor people who read this thread with an honest inquiry into differences between us and the Catholics, and just see a lot of ignorance and sarcasm mixed in with genuine knowledge and sincerity (all seem to be present on the board). I know that if I was an outsider, I would be monumentally saddened.
Perhaps for a side discussion: how did we get to talk about Theological matters like we're talking about basketball? When did we lose the spirit of adoration when talking about heaven and the saints? How is it that we can throw the word 'heresy' out so easily, not weighing how deeply a divide it puts a person with our Creator?
Pray for me,
fortunatus
I believe the last discussion regarding the Assumption of St. Mary's body clearly showed another difference between the COC and the Catholics.
Our Curch does not accept the heresy of St. Mary's resurrection and her inheritance of the Kingdom of God.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=69.msg158335#msg158335 date=1343759269]
How did Met. Bishoy react to Fr. Athanasius' book? This is not the first time HE has taught something controversial. A while ago, I skimmed through an article on his website where he criticized Max Michele for denying that we inherit the guilt of Adam at birth. As much as Max is a heretic, he is right in saying we do not inherit Adam's guilt. Unfortunately, this Augustinian innovation is all too common in the Coptic Church nowadays, even among Clergy and Bishops.
+Irini nem ehmot
Dear Severian,
I cannot answer on his reaction, but I am aware that there are clergy and lay that are responding to some of his teachings like on inherent guilt/"Original Sin", as well as his views on Judas' participation in Eucharist etc...
May God have mercy on us all. I really think discussion with imikhail right now is more vain than it is spiritual. I also fear for the poor people who read this thread with an honest inquiry into differences between us and the Catholics, and just see a lot of ignorance and sarcasm mixed in with genuine knowledge and sincerity (all seem to be present on the board). I know that if I was an outsider, I would be monumentally saddened.
Perhaps for a side discussion: how did we get to talk about Theological matters like we're talking about basketball? When did we lose the spirit of adoration when talking about heaven and the saints? How is it that we can throw the word 'heresy' out so easily, not weighing how deeply a divide it puts a person with our Creator?
Pray for me,
fortunatus
Likewise, please pray for me. :)
It is good that people are responding to his opinions. Did he receive any formal training in Orthodox theology before becoming a Metropolitan?
It makes me very uncomfortable and uneasy that you say that this is a heresy. Fr. Tadros and Fr. Athanasius are quoting a valuable source, while you are quoting Anba Bishoy -- who claims to be a modern day 'theologian'. Some of his teachings are not in line with the fathers, and if you choose to believe them, that's your choice. This does not give you the right nor the authority to claim that what the great father St. Theodosius has said is a heresy. I'm not sure on what grounds you are claiming that this is a heresy.
You asked Dimas to "enlighten us"... Well you know, imikhail, it seems that many people have tried to enlighten you providing you with valuable sources, and you are choosing to ignore them and remain in the dark. Again, that is your choice.
It's obvious that you are not here to learn, but rather to teach all of us. I wouldn't mind that, but please use credible sources, and do not claim teachings on behalf of the church. Orthodoxy has been and shall remain unchanged, and that's the beauty of it. Please refrain from speaking on behalf of the church unless you can provide us with credible sources.
As fortunatus has said, this discussion with you is more vain than it is spiritual. May St. Mary forgive us, and may she intercede on our behalf.
Pray for me,
Mansour
Also, what is your view on the Augustinian doctrine of inherited guilt/original sin?
Dear imikhail,
It makes me very uncomfortable and uneasy that you say that this is a heresy.
Dear Mansour,
Why is it uneasy and uncomfortable? May be because it shakes a fundamental belief or an idea you held for a long time.
I understand where you are coming from. Hopefully you turn this uneasiness and uncomfortablness into something positive through research into the true faith of the Church. You are lumping the two together and that is not fair. Please, read my previous posts, in particular post #128.
Where in all my posts did I quote Anba Bishoy? This comment tells me that you have not read any of my posts. So, I ask you to do so as to avoid making false claims. Again, it seems you have not read my posts. Otherwise you would have not asked this question.
Please, read my posts in particular 132, 136, and 140
Can you please do me a favor and summarize these sources?
Is it the alleged sermon by Tawodosious? The scriptures are not credible?
How about the readings of the Church? Would they be acceptable to you?
What about the liturgical prayers? Would they meet your standard? Have you reached that conclusion before you wrote your post? If so, why did you bother?
OK, how about this, imikhail. Provide Patristic sources to prove your claims. One cannot be Orthodox without holding steadfast to the teachings of the Fathers. Can you cite any Fathers who support your view?
Dear Severian,
None of the early Church Fathers spoke of her resurrection and her inheritance of the Kingdom of God.
This idea, of her resurrection and inheritance of the kingdom, developed after Chalcedon and all the authors who wrote about it were either Latin or Chalecedonians.
The Orient tradition (Oriental Orthodox) is that only her body ascended to heaven while her soul is in Paradise awaiting the general resurrection after the 2nd coming. This agrees with the readings, prayers of the Church as well as the scriptures.
This topic is for another thread. Please, create one if you wish.
I don't know if your soul has been reunited to your body or not. I know you your soul was taken by Christ into the bliss of Paradise, where you are the Lady and Queen of us all. I know your body was also assumed up into the sky. Where your pure body is kept or whether your soul is reunited with it, I do not know. I know it is not too much to imagine that the Lord granted you, His Mother, the glorious resurrection before the rest of humanity. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. In eihter case, whether you are in your body or out of your body,
Please intercede on our behalf and ask the Lord to forgive us our sins and keep our names in the Book of Life and grant us to be immediately in Christ's presence, in your presence, and the presence of the saints immediately upon our repose and attend to each of us at that moment, that we may be safely taken to that blessed abode, full of life and joy, even while we are out of the body. Bless are you, St. Mary.
Holy Mother of God, Saint Mary.
I don't know if your soul has been reunited to your body or not. I know you your soul was taken by Christ into the bliss of Paradise, where you are the Lady and Queen of us all. I know your body was also assumed up into the sky. Where your pure body is kept or whether your soul is reunited with it, I do not know. I know it is not too much to imagine that the Lord granted you, His Mother, the glorious resurrection before the rest of humanity. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. In eihter case, whether you are in your body or out of your body,
Why all these questions? Just wait till Aug 22 and the Church readings will tell you that it is only her body that was assumed to heaven.
OK, how about this, imikhail. Provide Patristic sources to prove your claims. One cannot be Orthodox without holding steadfast to the teachings of the Fathers. Can you cite any Fathers who support your view?
Let me try to give an unbiased response.
First, I will reiterate what Fr Peter said. They are multiple ancient manuscripts of the Virgin Mary's Assumption. These include: : Pseudo-John the Theologian, The Dormition
of the Holy Mother of God (fifth century); Pseudo-Melito of Sardis, The Passing of the Blessed Mary (fifth century); Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary the Mother of God (fifth/sixth century); Pseudo-Evodius of Rome, Discourse on the Dormition of Mary (sixth century); Theodosius of Alexandria, Discourse on the Dormition (sixth century); and Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea, The Passing of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (seventh century). These all talk about the Virgin's assumption. There are also other apocryphal texts that speak of the resurrection of the body and soul into a glorified state. SeeThe History of Joseph the Carpenter, chapters 30 & 31.
In this book, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, most of the patristic writings deal with Mary's Virginity, Mary's purity and Theotokos. There are some writings on Mary's dormition and assumption.
Epiphanius of Salamis (403 AD) preferred to keep silent on the question of Mary's death, burial and corruption. He didn't deny the assumption or resurrection but he didn't affirm it either.
Who did affirm it? Germanius of Constantinople (733 AD), Andrew of Crete (740 AD), John Damascene (750 AD). They all affirm Mary died physically, and resurrected (ie, her body reunited with her soul) and she dwells in honor in a "heavenly tabernacle".
In addition, John Damascene gives a history of Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. "Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem advised the Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria that their wish to have the bodily remains of the Virgin Mary was impossible, for when her tomb had been opened at the request of the Apostle Thomas, it was found to be empty. The Apostles then collectively concluded that Mary’s body had been transported to heaven by the will of her divine son."
"It is also reported in the ‘Lives of the Popes’ (Liber Pontificalis) that at some point in the century following Chalcedon, the emperor Mauritius (who died in 603) ordered that the feast of the Assumption should be kept on the 15th of August. Since it refers to the event as an established solemnity, the instruction was evidently directed at a
devotion already widely practised.
Archaeologically, there is a sarcophagus in the Crypt of Santa Engracia at Saragossa (a corrupted form of Caesar Augusta), Aragon (Spain) with a wall mural of the Virgin ascending up with the 12 disciples. It is dated to 312/313 AD. Legend has it that St James built the first Church there when the Virgin Mary helped him and gave him a wooden figure of herself. This occurred before St James returned to Jerusalem and died in 44 AD. This doesn't prove the Virgin Mary resurrected to heaven. It does, however, confirm that the disciples were at the dormition and assumption of the Virgin.
There are 3 possible understandings of what the Virgin glorified state is and what heaven is.
a) the corpse of Mary theory: the Virgin died and was buried but her body was never corrupted. (This is seen in a lot of Coptic hagiography including St Sidhom Bishay)
b) the living woman Mary, who thereby was saved from death: This theory suggests the Virgin never really died but she is a living, immortal human to this day, just like Enoch.
c) the resurrected woman, who had suffered death and then, at some point, was restored to life: This theory suggest the Virgin was resurrected and she is somewhere.
It is obvious that the first theory cannot be accurate otherwise there would be "relics" of the Virgin. (Unless no one knows where she is buried, like St Antony). What is consistent across all patristic writings from Ignatius to Origen to Athanasius and on is that St Mary is not like any other human (whether St Antony or Enoch). It seems somewhat illogical and contradictory to piety to conclude that her body met the same fate as other humans. The second also doesn't make sense since none of the fathers ever believed in this theory. Enoch must return with Elijah and be killed by the Antichrist as it says in Revelation 11:3. No one has ever claimed the Virgin Mary must return to die. This only leaves us with the third theory. The scant writings of pre-Chalcedonian fathers at least do not claim St Mary cannot be resurrected. They left the door open for the possibility of the Assumption and the Resurrection of the body.
I will conclude by stating since we can't define heaven as a spatial location, how can we say the Virgin's body went to heaven while her soul went somewhere else? We know from Hebrews 9:24 that Christ alone entered heaven in the presence of God as mediator and high priest. In Hebrews 12:27, even heaven will shake so that the unshakable "heaven" remains. Is the heavens in Hebrews 9:24 the same as Hebrews 12:27? Yes. Did the Virgin Mary go there after her dormition? No. There is another heaven, which we cannot locate spatially that will be shaken as described in Revelation 21:1. It is therefore entire plausible that the Virgin Mary ascended into the heaven that will pass away, described in Revelation 1-21:1. Then in the second coming, all men resurrected will enter the new heaven described in Revelation 21:2 onward and Hebrews. This is only my opinion, but I believe it conforms to Orthodoxy (and not just Oriental Orthodoxy).
[quote author=metouro link=topic=69.msg158377#msg158377 date=1343838802]
Holy Mother of God, Saint Mary.
I don't know if your soul has been reunited to your body or not. I know you your soul was taken by Christ into the bliss of Paradise, where you are the Lady and Queen of us all. I know your body was also assumed up into the sky. Where your pure body is kept or whether your soul is reunited with it, I do not know. I know it is not too much to imagine that the Lord granted you, His Mother, the glorious resurrection before the rest of humanity. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. In eihter case, whether you are in your body or out of your body,
Why all these questions? Just wait till Aug 22 and the Church readings will tell you that it is only her body that was assumed to heaven.
None of the scripture readings talk about the Virgin Mary's death and assumption. I assume you are referring to the Synaxarium of Mesra 16. It is true that the synaxarium speaks of the Virgin's soul lifted to her son, while her body was placed in a tomb. It includes the apocryphal story of a Jew who prevented her burial and his hands fell off. This story has been extended to identify this Jew as the paralytic man who was healed after 38 years by Jesus. The synaxarium story continues with the apocryphal story of Thomas requesting to see the body in the tomb and when they opened the tomb they didn't find her body because her body ascended shortly after her burial. Nothing in this synaxarium story implies a resurrection of the body until the end where it states:
"The Lord had promised his pure apostles that they would see her in flesh another time. They were waiting for the fulfillment of this truthful promise, until the sixteenth day of the month of Misra, when the promise of seeing her was fulfilled. They saw her sitting on the right hand of her Son and her Lord, surrounded by the angelic Host, as David prophesied and said, "At your right hand stands the queen." (Psalm 45:9) "
You will notice that she appeared in flesh, not just as a soul that temporarily assumed a body like angels. Stating her soul went to heaven while her body is in Paradise makes St Mary no different than Moses. Even Moses appeared on Mt Tabor resurrected body and soul, not just a lifeless body temporarily made alive that died again. This synaxarium story, at the very least, assumes a resurrection of the Virgin's body and soul and places her in heaven at the right hand of Christ in heaven. However, like I said in my previous post, this heaven is not the heaven of Hebrews 9:24 and 12:27, where Christ entered as mediator and high priest in an unshakable heaven. What purpose would St Mary have in this heaven? Would she be mediating to the Mediator Christ before the Mediator mediates to God? No. St Mary went to "heaven" but not the unshakable heaven. She sits at the right hand of her Son's throne in the "other" heaven. It's all very confusing. But within this framework, everything fits.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158379#msg158379 date=1343843200]
[quote author=metouro link=topic=69.msg158377#msg158377 date=1343838802]
Holy Mother of God, Saint Mary.
I don't know if your soul has been reunited to your body or not. I know you your soul was taken by Christ into the bliss of Paradise, where you are the Lady and Queen of us all. I know your body was also assumed up into the sky. Where your pure body is kept or whether your soul is reunited with it, I do not know. I know it is not too much to imagine that the Lord granted you, His Mother, the glorious resurrection before the rest of humanity. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. In eihter case, whether you are in your body or out of your body,
Why all these questions? Just wait till Aug 22 and the Church readings will tell you that it is only her body that was assumed to heaven.
None of the scripture readings talk about the Virgin Mary's death and assumption. I assume you are referring to the Synaxarium of Mesra 16. It is true that the synaxarium speaks of the Virgin's soul lifted to her son, while her body was placed in a tomb. It includes the apocryphal story of a Jew who prevented her burial and his hands fell off. This story has been extended to identify this Jew as the paralytic man who was healed after 38 years by Jesus. The synaxarium story continues with the apocryphal story of Thomas requesting to see the body in the tomb and when they opened the tomb they didn't find her body because her body ascended shortly after her burial. Nothing in this synaxarium story implies a resurrection of the body until the end where it states:
"The Lord had promised his pure apostles that they would see her in flesh another time. They were waiting for the fulfillment of this truthful promise, until the sixteenth day of the month of Misra, when the promise of seeing her was fulfilled. They saw her sitting on the right hand of her Son and her Lord, surrounded by the angelic Host, as David prophesied and said, "At your right hand stands the queen." (Psalm 45:9) "
You will notice that she appeared in flesh, not just as a soul that temporarily assumed a body like angels. Stating her soul went to heaven while her body is in Paradise makes St Mary no different than Moses. Even Moses appeared on Mt Tabor resurrected body and soul, not just a lifeless body temporarily made alive that died again. This synaxarium story, at the very least, assumes a resurrection of the Virgin's body and soul and places her in heaven at the right hand of Christ in heaven. However, like I said in my previous post, this heaven is not the heaven of Hebrews 9:24 and 12:27, where Christ entered as mediator and high priest in an unshakable heaven. What purpose would St Mary have in this heaven? Would she be mediating to the Mediator Christ before the Mediator mediates to God? No. St Mary went to "heaven" but not the unshakable heaven. She sits at the right hand of her Son's throne in the "other" heaven. It's all very confusing. But within this framework, everything fits.
The bottom line is that the feast of Assumption in the COC is called the assumption of the BODY of St. Mary. Not her resurrection, not her inheritance of the Kingdom like this forged sermon of Tawodosius is trying to imply.
The soul of St Mary is in paradise like all the other saints waiting for th general resurrection. This is the faith of the Church and it agrees with her scriptures and her liturgical prayers.
This is a good video by Dr. Scott Hahn on the Feast of the Assumption: