No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 July 2024
On the 1st of November, 1950, Pope Pius XII announced in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, as an indispensable part of Christian belief, revealed by God, that ‘Mary, the immaculate and perpetually virgin Mother of God, after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven’. It is difficult to know what sort of sense to give to this kind of dogmatic formulation, but it would seem that sense has to be made of it because it has been accepted by the general consensus of the Church and defined by the highest authority as being an integral part of Christian doctrine for all Roman Catholics. We have to make theological sense of it in order to be faithful to the transmission of the Marian traditions throughout the ages of the Church. This is not to suggest that we should relax our criticism of these tranditions, but I take it that we cannot be faithful to Christian tradition and at the same time adopt the liberal attitude of dispensing as irrelevant with those dogmatic traditions which do not meet our taste. Marian dogma cannot be shrugged off by Roman Catholics as being a Catholic aberration of Christian tradition; after the Papal definitions of the immaculate conception of Mary in 1854 and of her bodily assumption in 1950 the dogmas have to be taken with the utmost seriousness, and if it is found to be difficult to reconcile an easy understanding of these dogmas with more fundamental aspects of Christian doctrine then we must adopt a more broad-ranging interpretation of these beliefs. What is required in this instance is an exercise in dogmatic hermeneutics.
page 305 note 1 For example, K. Rahner: ‘The Interpretation of the Dogma of the Assumption’ in Theological Investigations I, pp. 215‐227; R. Laurentin: Court Traite de Theologie Mariale; and, at the other end of the theological spectrum, The Dogma of the Assumption, the G.T.S. pamphlet by Cardinal Heenan.
page 305 note 2 A sermon by Theoteknos is the first known theological discussion of the assumption and was published by Wenger in VAssumption, Paris, 1955Google Scholar.
page 306 note 1 Pannenberg: Jesus, God and Man, 1968, pp. 74‐5.
page 309 note 1 K. Rahner: Theological Investigations I, pp. 207‐8: ‘We should remember that in original sin … we are dealing with a “sin” which is essentially different from personal sin as the act of that freedom which permits of no deputization, a sin, then, which only falls under the same concept “analogically” .’
You have
Access