Did Mary die or not?/Assumption

[Irishgal49]

Ironically, Sacred Tradition has it that most of the Apostles (except for Thomas) were transported to Jerusalem to be at Mary’s side before her Dormition in a similar fashion.

I read that but wasn’t sure I was reading it right. I wasn’t sure if they were saying God told them to go be with Mary or if they were transported.

 

[Irishgal49]

The problem with that is that your argument for why Mary didn’t die is because Elijah and Enoch didn’t so therefore she didn’t because she was greater than them. Jesus is greater than her, yet he was subject to death from his very conception.

Jesus would be more than capable of taking any man to heaven without dying, so that is not an argument in favor of her not dying.

Thirdly, you have removed Mary from the human condition that Jesus entered. The redemption of man happened through Christ entering communion with us and accepting our condition. He was made incarnate as a fallen man, and death was the direct conclusion of the Incarnation. Christ was not born free of death; he born as a fallen man with a fallen nature. Through the uniting of our nature to his, and his death and resurrection he redeamed us. But you have removed Mary from that communion. She is seperated out as some superhuman that is not a member of fallen man. She is a prefall human, unlike Jesus. And you somehow think it is admirable for her to be seperated out from the human family tree.

Not totally accurate (what I’m thinking that is). I see Jesus willingly taking on our sin. Death is the result of sin. Mary did not sin so she could have been exempt from death. Of course that is up to God. Jesus took on our sin so he died.

 

[Irishgal49]

Did you know that Elijah sent a LETTER to king Jehoram 10 YEARS after he was “assumed” as you think into heaven?

It’s in the Bible. Here’s a quote from the link you have no time to look at:

" The new king of Israel was another son of Ahab, Jehoram, or Joram as he is sometimes called. The beginning of his reign marked the year of his removal of Elijah (2 Kings 1:18 and 3:1). During this king’s reign, Elisha was the recognized prophet of God (2 Kings 3:11). In the fifth year of Joram king of Israel, the son of the king of Judah began to reign along with his father in Judah (2 Kings 8:16). His name also was Jehoram. The first thing he did to establish his kingdom rule was to put his relatives to the sword lest they should claim the throne from him (2 Chronicles 21:4). For nearly six years he followed the ways of the nations about him and did evil in the sight of God.

Almost ten years had now expired since Elijah was taken from the people. After this wicked rule by the Jewish king, God chose Elijah to write a letter and have it sent to the king! The contents of the letter are found in 2 Chronicles 21:12-15. From the wording of this letter, it is clear that Elijah wrote it after these events had occurred, for he speaks of them as past events, and of the diseases as future, Two years after the king became diseased the king died, having reigned only eight short years (2 Chronicles 21:18-20).

This proves that the letter was written about ten years after Elijah had been taken to another location by the whirlwind. God used Elijah to convey the message because he was the prophet of God in the days of the present king’s father, and the son was not going in the ways of his obedient father, Jehosophat. This letter proves that he was alive someplace else. The Bible does not reveal how much longer Elijah lived after writing the letter, but it does say that it is appointed for all men to die once (Romans 5:12,14, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, Hebrews 9:27).

A similar incident to Elijah’s took place in Acts 8:39,40. Phillip was caught up into the first heaven, as Elijah was, and was transported to another location approximately 30 miles away. Another similar incident happened to Ezekiel, in which the spirit took him away (Ezekiel 3:12). The spirit lifted him up “between the earth and the heaven” and brought him “to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate” (Ezekiel 8:3). Afterwards, the spirit took him up to Chaldea (Ezekiel 11:24). "

That’s amazing. I am sorry I haven’t had a chance to read it. I have church meetings all this week and I had to get the linens done or they wouldn’t be able to be done until Thurs and the parish needs them before then.

I was married to a Jewish man and he insisted that Elijah went to some afterlife and was gone. I have never ever heard this. I went to seminary and have a masters in divinity and we were taught that he was taken to heaven and Elisha assumed his ministry.

That’s really interesting, I am going to have to check that out. I’m sorry I’m trying to keep up but I ironing linens took all day.

I appreciate your patience with me. That’s really wild. I have never heard that he was still on this planet after that event. I mean didn’t Elisha take his mantel and assume his ministry?

I remember Phillip. I wish I could get a ride like that sometimes. Paul seemed to have some experience like that too I think when he talked about his thorn in the flesh.

 

[jimmy]

Not totally accurate (what I’m thinking that is). I see Jesus willingly taking on our sin. Death is the result of sin. Mary did not sin so she could have been exempt from death. Of course that is up to God. Jesus took on our sin so he died.

The patristic teaching is that Jesus took on our nature, and by taking on our nature he took on everything that came with it, including the passions and death. In being made Incarnate he was made sin, and so death was inevitable. The incarnation inherently pointed toward his death.

Mary was human and a descendant of Adam, so it is contradictory for her to be exempt from death. Just because she didn’t sin doesn’t mean she was free from death. Jesus didn’t sin either, but he died.
Our contention, however, is not that the flesh of sin, but that the sin of the flesh, was brought to naught in Christ, not the material but its quality, not the substance but its guilt, according to the apostle’s authority when he says, ‘He brought to naught sin in the flesh.’ For in another place also he says that Christ was in the likeness of the flesh of sin: not that he took upon him the likeness of flesh, as it were a phantasm of the body and not its reality: but the apostle will have us understand by ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’ that the flesh of Christ, itself not sinful, was the like of that to which sin did belong, and is to be equated with Adam in species but not in defect. From this text we also prove that in Christ there was that flesh whose nature is in man sinful, and it is by virtue of this that sin has been brought to naught, while in Christ that same flesh exists without sin which in man did not exist without sin. Moreover it would not suit Christ’s purpose, when bringing to naught the sin of the flesh, not to bring it to naught in that flesh in which was the nature of sin: neither would it be to his glory. For what would it amount to if it was in a better kind of flesh, of a different (that is, a non-sinful) nature, that he destroyed the birthmark of sin? ‘In that case,’ you will reply, ‘if it was our flesh Christ clothed himself with, Christ’s flesh was sinful.’ Forebear to tie up tight a conception which admits of unraveling. By clothing himself with our flesh he made it his own, and by making it his own he made it non-sinful. [Tertullian as quoted by Fr Thomas Weinandy, *In The Likeness of Sinful Flesh]

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In being made Incarnate he was made sin …

 

[Irishgal49]

The patristic teaching is that Jesus took on our nature, and by taking on our nature he took on everything that came with it, including the passions and death. In being made Incarnate he was made sin, and so death was inevitable. The incarnation inherently pointed toward his death.

Mary was human and a descendant of Adam, so it is contradictory for her to be exempt from death. Just because she didn’t sin doesn’t mean she was free from death. Jesus didn’t sin either, but he died.
Our contention, however, is not that the flesh of sin, but that the sin of the flesh, was brought to naught in Christ, not the material but its quality, not the substance but its guilt, according to the apostle’s authority when he says, ‘He brought to naught sin in the flesh.’ For in another place also he says that Christ was in the likeness of the flesh of sin: not that he took upon him the likeness of flesh, as it were a phantasm of the body and not its reality: but the apostle will have us understand by ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’ that the flesh of Christ, itself not sinful, was the like of that to which sin did belong, and is to be equated with Adam in species but not in defect. From this text we also prove that in Christ there was that flesh whose nature is in man sinful, and it is by virtue of this that sin has been brought to naught, while in Christ that same flesh exists without sin which in man did not exist without sin. Moreover it would not suit Christ’s purpose, when bringing to naught the sin of the flesh, not to bring it to naught in that flesh in which was the nature of sin: neither would it be to his glory. For what would it amount to if it was in a better kind of flesh, of a different (that is, a non-sinful) nature, that he destroyed the birthmark of sin? ‘In that case,’ you will reply, ‘if it was our flesh Christ clothed himself with, Christ’s flesh was sinful.’ Forebear to tie up tight a conception which admits of unraveling. By clothing himself with our flesh he made it his own, and by making it his own he made it non-sinful. [Tertullian as quoted by Fr Thomas Weinandy, *In The Likeness of Sinful Flesh

]

But Jesus deliberately took on sin. Are you saying that Adam and Eve (before sin) were meant to die? Because the instructions God gave them was that in the day they sin (eat the fruit of the tree) they will die. Mary was in a state of freedom from that stain of sin so technically she could very well be exempt from death. Paul states that the wages of sin is death. He also states that because of one man’s disobedience death came because of sin.

I guess this is all moot as we are discussing whether or not she died before the assumption. She could have done a lot of things…in the end it would be up to God whether or not she would have died. And I have been reminded that God’s ways are not always what we think are logical or rational.

 

[jimmy]

Not sure what you mean by that? Christ took on our nature as it is, not some superhuman nature. That is the patristic teaching. By taking on our nature he redeemed it. If you are concerned about the phrase ‘made sin’, that is from the epistle to the Romans so I am not sure what you are confused about.

And that is the context in which I have a problem with the idea that Mary did not die. Christ took our nature as it is, including death, but Mary didn’t?

 

[Irishgal49]

Not sure what you mean by that? Christ took on our nature as it is, not some superhuman nature. That is the patristic teaching. By taking on our nature he redeemed it. If you are concerned about the phrase ‘made sin’, that is from the epistle to the Romans so I am not sure what you are confused about.

And that is the context in which I have a problem with the idea that Mary did not die. Christ took our nature as it is, including death, but Mary didn’t?

Right. Jesus took our sin on himself and chose to bear that sin as God. He said that no one takes His life but He lays it down willingly so He willingly took on sin and death and defeated it. Mary never sinned. She did not take on sin, as she was human and had no original sin either. So theoretically she did not have to die. Everything she gets as a benefit (not dying, her status and being honored) are given her by Jesus so it’s not elevating her above Him. It’s stating that she did not suffer the punishment of death due to the fact she didn’t sin. Paul made it clear that death was the punishment for sin.

I really am not seeing why it’s such a big deal if she died or not before her assumption. What difference does it make? You keep saying “the servant is not greater than the Master” but you are talking about God and our salvation. If Jesus would not have been God but a prophet then the point would be valid, but He was here for a Divine purpose. Mary had a purpose but she was human. I still see her as being the ultimate example of holiness and do not believe that someone with no stain of sin on them would be subject to the laws of death–a price paid by sinners.

 

[jimmy]

But Jesus deliberately took on sin. Are you saying that Adam and Eve (before sin) were meant to die? Because the instructions God gave them was that in the day they sin (eat the fruit of the tree) they will die. Mary was in a state of freedom from that stain of sin so technically she could very well be exempt from death. Paul states that the wages of sin is death. He also states that because of one man’s disobedience death came because of sin.

I guess this is all moot as we are discussing whether or not she died before the assumption. She could have done a lot of things…in the end it would be up to God whether or not she would have died. And I have been reminded that God’s ways are not always what we think are logical or rational.

What I am saying is that, Mary partook in the same fallen nature as Jesus, even if she didn’t sin. Jesus’ nature wasn’t a prefall, pure nature. It was the nature handed on from Adam and Eve to all of us. He took on that nature and redeemed it in himself. Mary needed the redemption of Christ just like every other human. The doctrine of the IC refers to the moral quality and concupiscience of original sin; it doesn’t refer to death, suffering and the passions. Mary is free from any moral stain. That doesn’t mean she is free from death.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Not sure what you mean by that? Christ took on our nature as it is, not some superhuman nature. That is the patristic teaching. By taking on our nature he redeemed it. If you are concerned about the phrase ‘made sin’, that is from the epistle to the Romans …

Yes, Christ was “made sin” by taking on Himself the sins of the world. The phrase is used in this context in Romans.

Yet He was sinless Himself. He was fully human but also fully divine.

 

[jimmy]

Right. Jesus took our sin on himself and chose to bear that sin as God. He said that no one takes His life but He lays it down willingly so He willingly took on sin and death and defeated it. Mary never sinned. She did not take on sin, as she was human and had no original sin either. So theoretically she did not have to die. Everything she gets as a benefit (not dying, her status and being honored) are given her by Jesus so it’s not elevating her above Him. It’s stating that she did not suffer the punishment of death due to the fact she didn’t sin. Paul made it clear that death was the punishment for sin.

I really am not seeing why it’s such a big deal if she died or not before her assumption. What difference does it make? You keep saying “the servant is not greater than the Master” but you are talking about God and our salvation. If Jesus would not have been God but a prophet then the point would be valid, but He was here for a Divine purpose. Mary had a purpose but she was human. I still see her as being the ultimate example of holiness and do not believe that someone with no stain of sin on them would be subject to the laws of death–a price paid by sinners.

Mary took on sin in as much as she was human. That is my whole point. The Incarnation is the point at which Christ took on sin. It wasn’t just a decision he made at the cross to offer up his life for us. The decision was from the beginning and was made manifest in the Incarnation, which pointed directly toward the cross. By becoming man, he became sin, or took on our sin. The same applies to Mary, even though she was free from any guilt of OS or concupiscience.

 

[Irishgal49]

What I am saying is that, Mary partook in the same fallen nature as Jesus, even if she didn’t sin. Jesus’ nature wasn’t a prefall, pure nature. It was the nature handed on from Adam and Eve to all of us. He took on that nature and redeemed it in himself. Mary needed the redemption of Christ just like every other human. The doctrine of the IC refers to the moral quality and concupiscience of original sin; it doesn’t refer to death, suffering and the passions. Mary is free from any moral stain. That doesn’t mean she is free from death.

But the Bible is clear that death was the penalty for sin. Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden lest they eat the tree of life and live in their fallen state forever. Paul talks in detail about death came because of sin. Because Mary was preserved from sin she could be seen as being exempt from death. That’s what I’m saying I believe happened in her case. It’s not making her higher than Jesus, it’s because of Jesus and who she was that she received all that she did.

I guess I’m also wondering if believing she died or she didn’t die changes your faith. It doesn’t mine. At the end of the day what happened to her, happened. God was in charge and we know where her body and soul ended up. I can see why someone would argue she died but I’m not seeing what that changes theologically.

 

[Irishgal49]

What I am saying is that, Mary partook in the same fallen nature as Jesus, even if she didn’t sin. Jesus’ nature wasn’t a prefall, pure nature. It was the nature handed on from Adam and Eve to all of us. He took on that nature and redeemed it in himself. Mary needed the redemption of Christ just like every other human. The doctrine of the IC refers to the moral quality and concupiscience of original sin; it doesn’t refer to death, suffering and the passions. Mary is free from any moral stain. That doesn’t mean she is free from death.

To what end? Why would Mary NEED to take on that nature. Jesus died once and for all and was/is GOD. Why in the world does Mary need to take on anything. Someone could say that Mary having to take on a nature would indicate that Jesus failed in some way. Why does she need to die? Why would a sinless soul be subject to death?

Where I get tripped up in what you said is the idea that Mary needed redeeming. She did and she didn’t. She got hers beforehand. So she didn’t need it later, as she already had it, I get so confused on this as a former Protestant it seems like a bunch of silly dancing to make the outcome say what they want it to say…but I’m trying.

Mary needs to be perfect so here’s the way we make that happen. I know that’s not true but it sure looks like it.

 

[Good_Fella]

The problem with that is that your argument for why Mary didn’t die is because Elijah and Enoch didn’t so therefore she didn’t because she was greater than them. Jesus is greater than her, yet he was subject to death from his very conception.

Jesus would be more than capable of taking any man to heaven without dying, so that is not an argument in favor of her not dying.

Thirdly, you have removed Mary from the human condition that Jesus entered. The redemption of man happened through Christ entering communion with us and accepting our condition. He was made incarnate as a fallen man, and death was the direct conclusion of the Incarnation. Christ was not born free of death; he born as a fallen man with a fallen nature. Through the uniting of our nature to his, and his death and resurrection he redeamed us. But you have removed Mary from that communion. She is seperated out as some superhuman that is not a member of fallen man. She is a prefall human, unlike Jesus. And you somehow think it is admirable for her to be seperated out from the human family tree.

Such a scenario does isolate Mary, doesn’t it? But since Mary had a key role to play in the divine plan of redemption, belonging to its hypostatic order as the mother of the Son, we mustn’t isolate her from our common humanity with Jesus. Jesus was like us in all things except sin, subjecting himself to even suffering and death along with the rest of humanity. Moses and Elijah were like us in all things except physical death. To assert that Mary was neither sinful nor relatively mortal or subject to pain presupposes she was different from Jesus and the rest of us, completely removed from the state of being human. Jesus had to be of “human estate” to redeem the world according to God’s plan. So Mary could not have associated herself with him in God’s work of salvation if she had been placed above the human condition. Her fiat would have been meaningless, since her divine maternity would have been unnecessary unless she had a share in our Lord’s suffering and death as all of us do as we work out our own salvation in “fear and trembling”. One can’t even imagine how Mary could possibly participate in Christ’s mediation as our Mediatrix of Grace if she were alienated from participation in Christ’s passion. Unless we die to ourselves and gladly offer our suffering and death to God in a true spirit of self-denial, our prayers for others are ineffectual. Certainly our human existence isn’t utopian. If it were, we wouldn’t have to pray, since we would be living in the best of all possible worlds from a purely human perspective. But for the sake of a greater good, God has permitted us to exist in a world where suffering and death comprise our human condition. These effects of original sin can help counter-balance our standing before God as a means of determining our love for him. The man who suffers and as a result blasphemes God and curses divine providence is someone who can’t overcome his pride and inordinate love of self: the sin of Adam which we have inherited and are called to renounce in union with the Son of Man. I can understand why there is no living tradition or liturgical celebration (mediums of divine revelation) about Mary having been spared suffering and death. Such a notion is inconsistent with orthodox soteriology as originally breathed by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

“Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground.”
St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379)

PAX

 

[jimmy]

Jesus took his human nature from Mary, and consequently Mary’s nature must have been subject to death. He recieved his nature from none other than a human who was subject to death like every other human. He recieved what is ours from us and made it his own. So, yes, it was necesary that she was subject to death.

 

[Good_Fella]

Jesus took his human nature from Mary, and consequently Mary’s nature must have been subject to death. He recieved his nature from none other than a human who was subject to death like every other human. He recieved what is ours from us and made it his own. So, yes, it was necesary that she was subject to death.

I would go so far as to assert that it was proper Mary was destined and even prone to die as we all are in our fallen state. By divine justice, Mary did not necessarily have to suffer or die, since she was preserved free from contracting the stain of original sin - the privation of the original state of holiness and justice forfeited by Adam - which results in suffering and death. So she was able to choose death if that’s what she desired. Her redemption at the first instance of her conception took the form of a divine preventive measure, unlike ours which is curative. Likewise, it was fitting, according to the divine wisdom, that Jesus assume our humanity with all the conditions that comprise our fallen state for the sake of redeeming the world as a propitiation for our sins, despite his absolute sinlessness by virtue of his divine nature. The Incarnation wasn’t so much a matter of the divine closely resembling what is human in nature as it was making use of what is natural in us as a means of redemption for the sake of a greater good, a means we ourselves can exploit by emulation to help make our formal salvation instrumentally possible. God did not necessarily have to become man in the person of the Son, but he chose to be incarnated by his wisdom. The course God took to save the world from sin and spiritual death was the right one to take to appease the divine justice and allow us to actively participate in Christ’s mediation and thereby our personal reconciliation with the Father. Perhaps it was sufficient in God’s plan of salvation that Mary should suffer and die together with Jesus and the human race on account of her role in the redemption. She did not have to die so that her Son could be as fully human like the rest of fallen humanity, at least not according to the divine justice. If this were so, then God in his infinite wisdom could just as well have refrained from sanctifying Mary’s soul at the first instance she was conceived in her mother’s womb and permitted her to inherit the stain of original sin as he has with the rest of us. As it stands, the Immaculate Conception was the proper course to take in light of Christ’s divine nature.

PAX

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Apparantly your only support for your position is an indirect ref in Hebrews and the view that strange and unusual OT statements may be assumed “historical” without exegetical inspection for allegory or other literary methods.

***The Bible DOES say that Elijah and Enoch did not die and I only point to that because the parochial vicar echoed me when he said at Mass ***

IG, you are placing huge theological weight on a very literal appreciation of what is, at face value, intended in the Bible as a legend or literary/theological device - not a historical fact. You make no real enquiry (exegetical or otherwise) as to whether it should be accepted as historical fact - especially as it flys in the face of accepted reality. A rational, reasonable person would be expected to do this.

It thus seems a clutching at straws to support a theological position that this “evidence” was never meant to supportjustify - so it comes across as rationalistic and contrived.

I know that Jewish tradition held that Elijah would return IN THE FLESH to point to the Messiah–to tell everyone “this is Him”. That was and still is required in the Jewish faith.
So what - Elijah has come in John the Baptist (according to Jesus). Clearly JB was not literally the same person Elijah (we do not believe in reincarnation) - again you are mounting a huge weight of theology on “evidence” that won’t actually support your theology because it was never written to support the theological position you are assigning it. This argument is a classic procrustean fallacy.

Again, I have to ask you to face the Elija issue head on. You still are not doing that.
Repeating endlessly that Elija did not die because it is in the Bible or a priest said so at mass doesn’t, by itself, go anywhere.

Jesus died, John the Baptist died (if he really was Elijah then Eliija did eventually die!), all the rest of humanity have died.

But Mary, no, you would rather believe she didn’t get wrinkles, didn’t get grey hair or cavities and didn’t die. And a fairy story about Elijah is your main supporting argument!

How do you reconcile this with your “doubting Thomas” approach to belief? I thought you don’t like to accept things that fly in the face of common sense?

All the above strongly suggests you may have unstated emotional reasons for so strongly asserting Mary did not die - because the “evidence” you propound just doesn’t cut it rationally yet. But maybe I have missed something.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

*The difference between Truth and fiction is profoundly simple - only fiction has to make sense.

When we are attached too deeply to a desire for things to make sense/consistency Reality cannot speak to us as deeply as it could. In the end Reality need not make human intellectual sense or consistency. It may be beyond our capability to contain it. Such are the ways of God.

That your theology makes you deeply doubt common sense things like the aging of Mary when mainline tradition would not force you into such a corner is not a good omen for that theology.*

For me if it doesn’t hold up to common sense then I cannot buy it. That doesn’t mean I expect God or the workings of God to be 100% comprehensible but I do expect that there be sense in it. … I will not sign up for any belief in any church without seriously ensuring I’m not being duped.

I have always been this way and I wish more than anything I could pick up a Catechism and say, “If this says it I believe it” but I can’t. It feels out of control and I freak. I have asked God many times to give me the grace to just step across that line of faith but I can’t do it. I just can’t. I have to wrestle it out until some semblance of sense comes and then I can say, “OK good enough, I am OK with that.” Then I can move onto the next belief. … I know God understands me.

IG, yes I agree with most of what you write above. Of course God expects us to be wise not gullible. If you were abused as a child then your “trust” antennae will be hypersensitised and a “pass” level will require much higher marks than most people would need for acceptance Yes I am sure God understands that.

May I also observe that such childhood trauma can affect our emotional understanding of sin/purity/authority/punishment/solidarity and this may explain your strong appreciation of particular views on Mary and why you might give excessive weight to arguments/evidence others find less than convincing.

But that’s just my experience and observation/discussion over the years with friends who were abused as children.

 

[Irishgal49]

Such a scenario does isolate Mary, doesn’t it? But since Mary had a key role to play in the divine plan of redemption, belonging to its hypostatic order as the mother of the Son, we mustn’t isolate her from our common humanity with Jesus. Jesus was like us in all things except sin, subjecting himself to even suffering and death along with the rest of humanity. Moses and Elijah were like us in all things except physical death. To assert that Mary was neither sinful nor relatively mortal or subject to pain presupposes she was different from Jesus and the rest of us, completely removed from the state of being human. Jesus had to be of “human estate” to redeem the world according to God’s plan. So Mary could not have associated herself with him in God’s work of salvation if she had been placed above the human condition. Her fiat would have been meaningless, since her divine maternity would have been unnecessary unless she had a share in our Lord’s suffering and death as all of us do as we work out our own salvation in “fear and trembling”. One can’t even imagine how Mary could possibly participate in Christ’s mediation as our Mediatrix of Grace if she were alienated from participation in Christ’s passion. Unless we die to ourselves and gladly offer our suffering and death to God in a true spirit of self-denial, our prayers for others are ineffectual. Certainly our human existence isn’t utopian. If it were, we wouldn’t have to pray, since we would be living in the best of all possible worlds from a purely human perspective. But for the sake of a greater good, God has permitted us to exist in a world where suffering and death comprise our human condition. These effects of original sin can help counter-balance our standing before God as a means of determining our love for him. The man who suffers and as a result blasphemes God and curses divine providence is someone who can’t overcome his pride and inordinate love of self: the sin of Adam which we have inherited and are called to renounce in union with the Son of Man. I can understand why there is no living tradition or liturgical celebration (mediums of divine revelation) about Mary having been spared suffering and death. Such a notion is inconsistent with orthodox soteriology as originally breathed by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

“Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground.”
St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379)

PAX

But wouldn’t she have suffered at the Cross? I had a son die at the age of 16, believe me watching your son die is suffering like no other. Couldn’t she have already united with Jesus in being at the foot of the cross and therefore that was her suffering? Knowing how horrific it is to be helpless as Jesus is beaten, mocked, humiliated, and executed is participating in His suffering, right? Why would death be needed for her to participate in his passion? She is Our Lady of Sorrows for that reason. Her death is never mentioned in that regard either. It seems that she more than participated in suffering and death. I can’t imagine being at the foot of cross watching Jesus die. That had to have been beyond horrible. I often wonder if she knew what this would be all about or not.

 

[Irishgal49]

IG, yes I agree with most of what you write above. Of course God expects us to be wise not gullible. If you were abused as a child then your “trust” antennae will be hypersensitised and a “pass” level will require much higher marks than most people would need for acceptance Yes I am sure God understands that.

May I also observe that such childhood trauma can affect our emotional understanding of sin/purity/authority/punishment/solidarity and this may explain your strong appreciation of particular views on Mary and why you might give excessive weight to arguments/evidence others find less than convincing.

But that’s just my experience and observation/discussion over the years with friends who were abused as children.

You are very kind, thank you. I see this as a curse. I see what happened to me as a child as a curse. I cannot simply accept things that everyone else can accept. I feel like I’m a pain. I sincerely wish I could just read something the Church teaches and say, “That’s very well articulated, the Church says it so it must be true. Count me in.” I have to hold part of me back. I can’t give into it with my whole heart or I risk losing who I am.

Of course I’ve had people in all sort of weird religious groups try and “convert” me and I’m not going there. They found out I ask too many questions.

The Church has been around how long now? It’s pretty arrogant and stubborn to not just accept what it says but I feel this angry resistance. I try to pray but it doesn’t seem to go away. It’s that emotional digging in with my heels that keeps me from peacefully embracing all that my faith has for me. I would truly give anything to be able to just assent to what the Church teaches and rest in its arms. i feel like I’ve been at war most of my life. I guess people think I LIKE being this way. They don’t understand, I don’t. Maybe its about trust. Maybe that’s what it is.

I had a priest tell me that it’s OK to discuss beliefs and see where they come from but that they become too personal to me. I don’t know where that “emotional” piece comes from but that seems to stand in my way of really having good intellectual discussions. I see it very clearly and I work on suspending that emotion, but haven’t had a lot of success doing it. I guess it just takes time. I have to keep working on that.

It makes it hard. It’s difficult to have a discussion about where you struggle when you become emotional and feel attacked. I know in my head I’m not but something resists even harder when someone says, “You MUST believe this” that’s a kiss of death for me going along with it. I know there must be a positive way to channel all this but maybe I’m just too messed up to get it. It’s like I “FEEL” the right answer.

Now truthfully I can see evidence and realize that I have taken a wrong turn but I have to go through all this rather than just look at evidence and say, “Oh OK I see, wow maybe you’re right.” I eventually do that but not without a lot of emotional dancing. I hate being like this, trust me, I don’t enjoy being stubborn.

Lorrie