Concerning the death of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the prevalent opinion among Roman Catholics is uncertainty and, therefore, a matter which Catholics in faith may agree or disagree. Typically the first justification for this position is one of silence – namely, the silence of Pope Pius XII regarding the formula used to decree the dogma of the Assumption:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
MD 44 [emphasis mine]
Note, Pius does not state explicitly that Mary died when he solemnly proclaimed her Assumption. Note also, he does not declare explicitly that her body was free from corruption. There is much surrounding the mystery of our Blessed Mother’s Assumption that Pius XII chose not to solemnly pronounce. Mary’s death not being dogmatically defined is taken as grounds for agnosticism, yet doctrines solemnly defined by an extraordinary act of the Magisterium – be it an ex cathedra statement or in ecumenical council – are not the only teachings to which Catholics are bound to give assent.
There are different levels of teaching in the Catholic Church.* Those doctrines defined by an act of the solemn magisterium are of the highest level of teaching and to them the greatest assent is owed. The doctrine of Mary’s death obviously does not belong to this level of teaching. The next level of teaching are those doctrines set fourth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. An argument can be made that the doctrine of Mary’s death belongs to this level of teaching and, therefore, the assent of faith would be required of the faithful. However, let us say that the doctrine of Mary’s death does not belong to this second level of teaching. Is it reasonable to hold that it is a doctrine of the Church’s third level of teaching: those “propose[d] in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium?”
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner,’ they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere to it with religious assent’ which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
CCC 892
Concerning this religious assent to be given, the Code of Canon Law states:
Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act.
CIC 752
The teaching of Mary’s death is a universal teaching of the Church’s magisterium. It has been taught without interruption by the bishops of the East – in communion with the Pope of Rome – since the time of the Church Fathers to our own day. It has also been perennially taught in the West. (My previous post on the death of Mary in Sacred Tradition gives a sampling in the Fathers and Doctors of the Church regarding this mystery of faith, a sampling that includes Popes and bishops of the West.) So what are we to make of its absence in Pius XII’s solemn decree of the Assumption? Pope St. John Paul II in his Wednesday audience on the mystery of our Holy Mother’s death said, “[Pius XII] merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers.” [emphasis mine] In other words, Pius XII did not judge it opportune to raise the doctrine of Mary’s death to the highest level of Church teaching, namely, those proclaimed by a solemn act of the Magisterium and, therefore, to be accepted with the type of assent given that level of teaching. One rightly wonders why this may be. The reason for the definition of the Assumption of Mary ex cathedra sheds light on this.
The decisive driving force behind the declaration was veneration for Mary, that the dogma, so to speak, owes its origin, impetus, and goal more to an act of homage than to its content…. This dogma was intended to be an act of veneration, the highest form of Marian praise.
Joseph Ratzinger, Daughter Zion, p. 73
The end of Mary’s earthly life and beginning of her heavenly life are two sides of the same coin forming one mystery. The Church of the West, from early on, emphasized Mary’s Assumption in Her veneration of this mystery of faith. Pius’s definitive declaration reflects this. While being an act of the whole Church, it is an act of veneration by the West distinctly and bears a Western flavor regarding its emphasis and formulation. This is not, however, an implicit denial of the Tradition in the West of Mary’s death nor of the approaches to Mary’s death and assumption in the East. To the contrary, Joseph Ratzinger points out:
What the orient achieves in the form of liturgy, hymns, and rites, took place in the occident through the form of a dogmatic proclamation, which was intended to be, so to speak, a most solemn form of hymnology.
ibid
The bodily death and assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is proclaimed in the Eastern Churches through their worship. However, the liturgical and devotional tradition of Mary’s death is not unique to the East. It is also part of the West though not so greatly emphasized. Pius XII draws our attention to the liturgical tradition of Mary’s feast, inclusive of her death, in the West.
In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”
MD 17
The mystery of our Blessed Mother’s death is also widely attested in the sacred and devotional art of the West, including liturgical books and architecture.
Most images of Mary’s dormition show her soul being reunited with her body. This image is unique in that it shows her soul being received by her Son in heaven.
The correspondence between the solemn decree of Mary’s Assumption and liturgical testimony of this mystery raises the question of the relationship between magisterial teaching and liturgical texts, as well as the role played by liturgical texts in determining which level of teaching a doctrine belongs to. Those questions are far too great to be treated here. However, Pope Pius XII touches on this relationship in Munificentissimus Deus. It is worth quoting in full.
However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ – truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.
MD 20
The liturgical texts of the Church are not determinative of Catholic doctrine. Rather the liturgical texts are manifestations of the faith, for the liturgy “springs from it [Catholic faith], in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree.” The Church proclaims the bodily death of the Virgin in her sacred worship – East and West – because it is the teaching of the universal Church. Many of the quotes in the previous post on Mary’s death in Sacred Tradition come from precisely those homilies and sermons Pius refers to above – homilies and sermons in which blessed bishops of old put forth the Church’s teaching celebrated in Her holy liturgy that day. Pius, himself, may be added to their numbers.
Pius XII did not affirm solemnly the death of the Virgin, but this does not mean that he did not affirm her death at all in Munificentissimus Deus. Throughout the apostolic constitution Pius affirms our Mother’s death by way of quoting Church fathers and doctors. He does not limit himself simply to the words of others, however. In the paragraph given above (MD 20) Pius affirms this mystery of faith in his own words. He includes as a fact shown by the feast and a truth “the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly” that “the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt.” Earlier (MD 17) he quotes from a sacramentary which states explicitly the “temporal death” of our Holy Mother, a text which “springs from [Catholic faith].”
It is clear Pope Pius XII was not uncertain concerning the death of the Holy Mother of God. He was quite certain of her death and he affirms the mystery of her death in the same apostolic constitution in which he solemnly proclaims the dogma of Mary’s assumption. That he did not deem it necessary to solemnly proclaim the mystery of her death does not mean that we Catholics are to remain in uncertainty and agnosticism. The living Tradition of the Church testified to by Pius XII sets before us the awe inspiring mystery of the death of the Virgin. It is at the very least a doctrine of the Church’s third level of teaching to which our assent of mind and will are required. If one is uncertain in their understanding, may they be certain in their belief. If the importance of the mystery is perceived as opaque, may they recognize that it is not the mystery but their vision which is clouded, and in loving fidelity seek the purifying divine light.
*For information and commentary on the different levels of teaching in the Church see “Four Levels of the Church’s Teaching” by Fr. William Most and “The Three Levels of Magisterial Teaching” by Br. Andre Marie.
the theological beard 