I realize that the painting above, that of Raphael, with Sixtus and Barbara, isn’t exactly precisely emphasizing the Assumption of the BVM into heaven, but I couldn’t resist putting up this picture, since I grew up with this painting hanging in our home in Minnesota. I used to stand in front of it in awe.
WDTPRS has a good overview of this 4th Glorious Mystery of the Rosary from a patristiblogger point of view. However…
I’d like to add some bits to that for the sake of understanding this mystery and for an even better relationship with our Orthodox brethren, who hold that our Blessed Mother did die a physical death.
I used to get upset with the Latin Rite knuckleheads who insisted that the Immaculate Conception had to die like everyone else, denying that she was, in fact, immaculately conceived and was, therefore, denying that she was free of the effects of original sin, including death. However, now I agree with such heretics about Mary dying, though for an entirely different reason.
I would now conjecture that it is precisely because she was conceived without original sin that she would surely have died in solidarity with her Son, making the intention not to remain alive, dying from her sundered heart, pierced right through with sorrow, as we read in the Gospel of Luke.
It was precisely because of her immaculate conception that she had such purity of vision, because of which, seeing truly the goodness of her Son, equally truly saw how evil we are in our sin, seeing this by looking upon her Son hanging upon the Cross in bleeding shreds of flesh, seeing all our evil from the first man to the last, and being able in this way to intercede for us perfectly as mediatrix of all graces, as co-redemptrix, a human who appropriately perfectly matches the gift of grace with the request for us.
In allowing herself to be in such solidarity with her Son, she was also allowing herself to die for us, to lay down her life for us.
However, I wasn’t there! But even if she was taken up in an instant to heaven in the twinkling of an eye, as Saint Paul puts it for those who are alive when Christ comes again, that twinkling demands a change in the body which, although perhaps like a flash of light – to use some image – is nevertheless a kind of death, a change allowing the body to take in the immediate vision of God, face to Face.
Accompany me, Father George David Byers, S.S.L., S.T.D., as I begin life as a Catholic Priest-Hermit by choice. Holy Souls Hermitage is dedicated to the sanctification of my fellow priests, bishops, deacons & seminarians going through the purgatory of this life or the next. Prayer and sacrifice go up, of course, for both Benedict XVI and the next Successor of Saint Peter. 
I’d like to see some more posts on the differences/similarities between the Orthodox and us, especially regarding the “key” issues like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, the Filioque, the Palamite “energies and essence” distinctions and the issue of created vs. uncreated grace as well as the issue of Hesychasym. As an aside I personally think that while there are certain undeniable dangers in the Hesychast movement such as the possibility of denying the need for the sacraments and perhaps a sort of Pelagian reliance on technique without grace it is basically a valid path although if the Church has definitively said otherwise I will not involve myself with it.
Interestingly enough just the other day I was reading one of the Optina Elders books (Elder Barsanuphius) where he makes mention of our Lady as dispensing all grace which made me think that at least on certain levels perhaps some Orthodox actually hold a similar belief to ours about our Lady as the “Mediatrix” of grace but just don’t really define it dogmatically.
As for the Assumption I think basically the Orthodox believe the same thing but in reaction to the solemn definition of the dogma by Pius XII in 1950 some of the more polemical minded Orthodox on Athos decided, in protest, to deny it.
I guess this stuff is important to me as someone with Russian ancestry who, while a traditional Roman Catholic who cannot help but believe in the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc. longs for the division between East and West to be healed and thinks that on many issues we are quite close but just have different ways of talking about them.
Um… which of the Orthodox. I’m guessing that they are not all so very homogenous…
I guess more than anything I wondered if in your various travels you had ever had the chance to discuss some of the points of difference and agreement between various Orthodox and if so what did you learn from those encounters? I know that in Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s book “The Orthodox Church” he mentions that most Orthodox regardless of whether they are Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians or Americans reject the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, the filioque and, of course, the Papacy as we Catholics see it and in Valdimir Lossky’s book Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church he says that in Orthodoxy there is no real distinction between grace and nature, no “state of grace” in the way we Catholics might see it. I know Henri De Lubac is supposed to have held similar views about grace or so someone told me recently… I risk getting in over my head here, as I am not a theologian nor have I been trained in the finer points of these arguments. I’m just profoundly interested in this stuff. I mean, I know the various Eastern Rites, the so called “Uniates” pretty much follow much of the Eastern traditions and theology. How much common ground is there really between us Catholics and the various Orthodox, at least in your own view if you have had much experience in this of course?
A great friend, Father Peter Joseph, has a work which takes this all up, if I remember correctly, in some pages, ennumerating perhaps 22 major differences the Orthodox have with the Bishop of Rome. HERE: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2001/oct2001p15_692.html Note that that work is massive, and that this is only a small topic among so many others.
I have plenty of ideas about the Orthodox, which would be shocking to many, I think. But I tend to pay lots of attention to the dropping of excommunications. I pay little attention to the opinions of private ecclesiastics, even if they be Patriarchs. I doubt very much if one can seriously categorize beliefs based on the opinions of private ecclesiastics, however vocally they might use their offices.
Note also that differences might not at all be as pronounced as some might think. Sometimes the arguments are EXTREMELY refined, the best of which are sometimes ignored. It is said that Saint Thomas Aquinas had much to say about the Filioque controversy, concluding that the Orthodox and the Catholics held the same doctrine, the historical expressions of which have to be understood in the controversies of the centuries in which they were enunciated. Very, very, very few scholars are careful, and like to apply quick “apologetic” answers. This needs very serious study. We must be in great anquish until unity is recognized.
At any rate, it helps to hear things from the Orthodox. Perhaps the Hieromonk who comemnts frequently on WDTPRS might be of some assistence. He has a website and, I suppose, contact info there.
Best wishes!
Father-
Thanks for the reply. I had never really much considered the lifting of the excommunications done jointly by Pope Paul VI and whoever the Ecumenical Patriarch was back then but it ought to indeed have some kind of significance. Of course it’s usually touted as nothing more than “symbolic” but the bottom line is that they were jointly lifted which does tend to be ignored or brushed aside. Pride can and does get in the way much of the time on both sides. The polemics from both sides can be really uncharitable and quite hostile and you are right, oftentimes there is very little real effort to understand the nuances and details of the arguments (including the historical circumstances, language barriers, etc.) As for St. Thomas on the filioque I will look into it. It is quite interesting to consider.
What bothers me about the schism is how many regular folks got caught up in something they ultimately had nothing to do with? I mean, only a few of us actually sit and think about theological questions and all that. Most people just go to Church on Sunday, receive the sacraments and go about their day to day business. In saying this I’m not trying to brush aside serious theological inquiry as irrelevant but basically for most people on the practical level it is, and not just for Orthodox but for Catholics as well. I suppose I just hope the good Lord really is extremely merciful to all of us. Again, thanks for the reply and for pointing me in a few directions.