Did Mary die or not?/Assumption

[Irishgal49]

Well I will stand behind my priest on that one and I personally think that her not dying makes sense, but like someone said, that part of it isn’t mandated. Her assumption is but dying or not dying is a matter of opinion.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

This has been questioned so much that Blessed John Paul II felt it necessary to clarify the matter here. In a word, yes, according to Blessed JPII, the Blessed Virgin experienced death (without corruption). The question continues to arise, of course, because MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS does not clearly state in the final dogmatic statement that she died. As we all know, the final statement merely says 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.” However, when you read the full document, you can see that the Pope clearly quotes earlier tradition regarding her death. For example, in paragraph 20 it says " 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." In fact, as I read the document, I realized that it was consistently mentioned that the Virgin’s body remained incorrupt. Why would such a point be necessary if it was believed that she had not died? No, it was always the tradition of the Church that she had experienced death without corruption. It is also in line with Orthodox tradition as well. In fact, I was a bit surprised to learn that this notion of her not dying only developed in the 17th century. I agree with Blessed John Paul’s assessment of Pius XII’s dogmatic proclamation when he wrote “Nevertheless, Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of her death, but 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.”

 

[Irishgal49]

Interesting how Catholics will argue about something that is not essential to believe. I just know it’s what priest told me. I see no reason to doubt what he said. I’m off to another topic but I really don’t believe she died, she was sinless and the laws of sin and death did not apply to her.

Lorrie

 

[thistle]

By the way, there are no beliefs that are “must be believed under pain of mortal sin”. Nothing. Nada.

Absolutely untrue.

Catholics are bound by Church doctrine (both infallible and non-infallible) and if they reject any doctrine they commit a sin of grave matter.

 

[Irishgal49]

Absolutely untrue.

Catholics are bound by Church doctrine (both infallible and non-infallible) and if they reject any doctrine they commit a sin of grave matter.

I am curious…if someone cannot assent to a belief because of their own woundedness, brokenness, lack of trust, mental illness, does that hold true? I know we are to assent to dogma but much of what people are saying are mortal sins are ‘teachings’ and those can be changed by the Church. I am even told that certain things are dogma that are not dogma. Interesting.

My take is that God knows my heart. He knows why I may believe something or not believe it and He knows my struggles. I really do NOT believe that is mortal sin. My priest confers with me on that. We need to use caution in telling people they are in mortal sin because they aren’t “on board” with a teaching or doctrine. Dogma questions are quite serious and I would STILL encourage someone to see a priest. I don’t think we have a right to tell anyone they are guilty of mortal sin and on their way to hell. Sometimes people are mentally ill, or they are confused, or hurting. If someone has serious problems, clarifying where they can get more information, being kind and supportive, and praying for them (while encouraging them to see their priest/spiritual advisor) is best. Too much judgement on here…people are asking questions. Some may not even be Catholic and are just being rude or pushing buttons.

Charity in all things. I just wish someone would put up a chart on what’s dogma, what’s doctrine, and what’s teaching.

Hugs to all,

Lorrie

 

[thistle]

I am curious…if someone cannot assent to a belief because of their own woundedness, brokenness, lack of trust, mental illness, does that hold true? I know we are to assent to dogma but much of what people are saying are mortal sins are ‘teachings’ and those can be changed by the Church. I am even told that certain things are dogma that are not dogma. Interesting.

My take is that God knows my heart. He knows why I may believe something or not believe it and He knows my struggles. I really do NOT believe that is mortal sin. My priest confers with me on that. We need to use caution in telling people they are in mortal sin because they aren’t “on board” with a teaching or doctrine. Dogma questions are quite serious and I would STILL encourage someone to see a priest. I don’t think we have a right to tell anyone they are guilty of mortal sin and on their way to hell. Sometimes people are mentally ill, or they are confused, or hurting. If someone has serious problems, clarifying where they can get more information, being kind and supportive, and praying for them (while encouraging them to see their priest/spiritual advisor) is best. Too much judgement on here…people are asking questions. Some may not even be Catholic and are just being rude or pushing buttons.

Charity in all things. I just wish someone would put up a chart on what’s dogma, what’s doctrine, and what’s teaching.

Hugs to all,

Lorrie

First of all Church doctrines (teachings) have been consistent for 2000 years. They have never changed and cannot be changed. Its interesting to know but somewhat irrelevant trying to see what is an infallible doctrine or a non-infallible doctrine. Catholics are bound by both.
Only disciplines can change.

Rejection of infallible teachings is heresy and a mortal sin.
Rejection of non-infallible teachings is not heresy but is a mortal sin.

Of course when it comes to sins of grave matter for such a sin to become mortal a person has to know a sin is of grave matter and go ahead an commit it anyway (grave matter, full knowledge, full consent of the will). Culpability can be reduced through mental incapacity and coercion.

 

[Irishgal49]

First of all Church doctrines (teachings) have been consistent for 2000 years. They have never changed and cannot be changed. Its interesting to know but somewhat irrelevant trying to see what is an infallible doctrine or a non-infallible doctrine. Catholics are bound by both.
Only disciplines can change.

Rejection of infallible teachings is heresy and a mortal sin.
Rejection of non-infallible teachings is not heresy but is a mortal sin.

Of course when it comes to sins of grave matter for such a sin to become mortal a person has to know a sin is of grave matter and go ahead an commit it anyway (grave matter, full knowledge, full consent of the will). Culpability can be reduced through mental incapacity and coercion.

Teachings can and do change: Priestly celibacy, the sun rotates around the earth. You can laugh but the Church censured and tried people for heresy over this. I think we see that the Church can and does breathe and grow in terms of teachings. Some things become more doctrine when we see that these were always beliefs, just not fully actualized and understood as such. Dogma does not change although the Church can and does move things to Dogma (Immaculate Conception, Assumption) that, while previously held, were not official Dogma of the Church. Doctrinal issues are just under Dogma and many times are declared Dogma but are not dogma. All dogma are doctrines. I always tell people the easy way to remember most Dogma is what is taught in the Creeds and the dogma regarding the Blessed Mother: Immaculate Conception; Assumption.

Canon Law 752 says: “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…”

So…you can live in submission to the Church (submitting to it’s teachings) even though you are not quite able to give an assent of faith when it’s a DOCTRINE/TEACHING…this would NOT be mortal sin. My priest said that as long as I am not out telling others NOT to believe it, and I’m sincerely TRYING, and I’m practicing my faith to the very best of my ability I am not in mortal sin. Believe me I have OCD I totally OVER blow what I’m guilty of in that regard so I’m not letting myself off easy. I have beat myself up over these struggles to the brink of self destruction so I had to get priestly help. I have been working with priests off and on in regards to some of these questions.

One priest showed me Canon Law 747 Paragraph 1: “All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.” He said that many Catholics take years and years ‘coming to know’ what is truth and trusting the Church really does hold that truth. He further said there is no sin if it is legitimately a case where, due to abuse/maltreatment/abuse of authority one cannot 100% assent to the Catholic faith immediately and may never be able to fully assent to all its teachings/doctrines. I have no problem with what is taught as Dogma but there are a few things I cannot fully assent to but the priest said that by my submitting to the Church as I can and fulfilling my Sunday obligations, attending daily Mass, and having a strong devotional life that I will continue to grow in my faith.

I think many who make these “rants” are afraid. What are you afraid of? If I’m earnestly seeking the truth and open to it, then it’s going to happen, right? That doesn’t mean I’m in mortal sin, that merely means I’m growing and learning. If I refuse to be open to the truth and refuse to study and listen and read/learn then that’s different. I’m not refusing, I just can’t say I agree with a couple of the teachings at this time. I willingly live in submission to the Church until such time that I can say for certain I agree with her.

My problem is the word REJECTION. Just because I cannot affirm something as “I believe” does not mean I reject it. Telling people this is beating them over the head. Rebellion is one thing, but I see most who say they don’t agree with something as struggling, not deliberately rejecting something. My priest knows what I cannot say yes to and he’s OK with it. I am not in a state of mortal sin, I am in a state of being human, learning, and growing. I just finished reading the entire collection of JPII’s Theology of the Body. If anyone is trying harder to resolve their issues I’d like to meet them.

I guess since we are off target I want to make it clear that I totally believe and affirm the Church’s teaching’s on the Blessed Mother both her Immaculate Conception and Assumption. I don’t want someone reading this to think I’m debating that because I am not. I have a very strong devotion to my Mother and she has helped me resolve many of my disagreements with the Church and gently continues to lead me to her Son. Never having a love mother in my life, she is my Mother in every way.

If anyone struggles with something that the Church teaches talk to your priest, get some readings, pray, learn all you can and don’t freak out. You are NOT committing a mortal sin if you are open and willing to grow in your understanding of truth. Some of us don’t have the mentality that lets us jump into something with blind faith. I see those who can as blessed with a special grace. I’ve asked for it and asked for it and tried to do it myself but I can’t. So I am going to carry my cross and keep moving forward.

Blessings to all,

Lorrie

 

[triumphguy]

Jesus died and He never sinned. The Mother is not greater than or more privileged than the Son.

The most traditional Roman Catholic belief is that she died and then was raised from the dead and assumed body and soul into heaven, thus foreshadowing our own bodily resurrection. That is what we who die in Christ have to look forward to. But the Church has made no official pronouncement, just that at the end of her earthly life she was assumed body and soul into heaven.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Corinthians 5:21[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Ron_Conte]

Absolutely untrue.

Catholics are bound by Church doctrine (both infallible and non-infallible) and if they reject any doctrine they commit a sin of grave matter.

Can you cite a document of the Magisterium saying that it is an objectively grave sin to dissent from any non-infallible teaching? What if one Bishop teaches one position, and another Bishop teaches the opposite position, on a matter of faith or morals? The faithful Catholic cannot hold one position without dissenting from the opposite.

The U.S. Bishops have taught that some dissent from non-infallible teachings is licit:

**Norms of Licit Theological Dissent

**49. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.

50. The reverence due all sacred matters, particularly questions which touch on salvation, will not necessarily require the responsible scholar to relinquish his opinion but certainly to propose it with prudence born of intellectual grace and a Christian confidence that the truth is great and will prevail.

51. When there is question of theological dissent from noninfallible doctrine, we must recall that there is always a presumption in favor of the magisterium. Even noninfallible authentic doctrine, though it may admit of development or call for clarification or revision, remains binding and carries with it a moral certitude, especially when it is addressed to the Universal Church, without ambiguity, in response to urgent questions bound up with faith and crucial to morals. The expression of theological dissent from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and well-founded, if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church and is such as not to give scandal.

53. Even responsible dissent does not excuse one from faithful presentation of the authentic doctrine of the Church when one is performing a pastoral ministry in her name.

Sources: Priests for Life and EWTN

The above quoted document was issued by the U.S. Bishops, in response to dissent from the teachings of Humanae Vitae. Their point was twofold: that some dissent from non-infallible teachings can be licit and responsible, and that dissent from HV exceeds the limits of those norms.

Anyone who holds that no dissent from non-infallible teachings is licit is
in effect dissenting from the above non-infallible teaching.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium teaches, non-infallibly, that Mary died and was raised from the dead, prior to her assumption. The magisterial teaching on the Assumption is infallible. The magisterial teaching that Mary first died and rose is non-infallible.

Pope John Paul II teaches that Mary died in this General Audience:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997_en.html

In no less than seven separate paragraphs the Apostolic Constitution on the Assumption refers, in one way or another, to the death of the Virgin Mary:

1. “In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life.” (n. 14)
2. " ‘Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death….’ " (n. 17, quoting the Sacramentarium Gregorianum)
3. " ‘As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.’ " (n. 18, quoting the Byzantine liturgy)
4. “…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….” (n. 20, referring to the feast of the Assumption)
5. " ‘It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death.’ " (n. 21, quoting St. John Damascene)
6. " ‘…she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.’ " (n. 22, a quote attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem)
7. “Hence the revered Mother of God…finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven….” (n. 40)

In no less than three places, this same Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, also clearly refers to the Resurrection of the Virgin Mary:

1. “Thus, during the earliest period of scholastic theology, that most pious man, Amadeus, Bishop of Lausanne, held that the Virgin Mary’s flesh had remained incorrupt-for it is wrong to believe that her body has seen corruption-because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned with great glory in the heavenly courts.” (n. 28)
2. " ‘What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after death if he could?’ " (n. 35, quoting St. Francis of Sales)
3. " ‘…she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.’ " (n. 22, a quote attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem)

The death of the Virgin Mary is also taught in the Catholic Church in the east, again, non-infallibly.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

From the link provided above (and Thanks!)

3. It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation. Involved in Christ’s redemptive work and associated in his saving sacrifice, Mary was able to share in his suffering and death for the sake of humanity’s Redemption. What Severus of Antioch says about Christ also applies to her: “Without a preliminary death, how could the Resurrection have taken place?” (Antijulianistica, Beirut 1931, 194f.). To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death.

There are many sound arguments, both theological and historical to believe that the Virgin Mary experienced death. The teaching of the Church is so OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of this position, that it is really incumbent upon the opposition to layout equally compelling reasons to believe otherwise. However, in my experience the argument in favor of the Virgin’s never dying is a lack of explicit dogmatic pronouncement, and personal prejudice.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Prayer_Warrior:

I was a bit surprised to learn that this notion of her not dying only developed in the 17th century.

I never thought the concept went back that far!

I believe it got a big boost with MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, and its indirect (yet meaningful) mention of the Virgin Mary’s death as:

“having completed the course of her earthly life”

But that is NOT the same as saying:

“at the end of her earthly life”

The two statements, are vastly different, and only casual or prejudiced readers will mistake the two for being synonymous.

 

[Irishgal49]

The Magisterium teaches, non-infallibly, that Mary died and was raised from the dead, prior to her assumption. The magisterial teaching on the Assumption is infallible. The magisterial teaching that Mary first died and rose is non-infallible.

Pope John Paul II teaches that Mary died in this General Audience:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997_en.html

In no less than seven separate paragraphs the Apostolic Constitution on the Assumption refers, in one way or another, to the death of the Virgin Mary:

1. “In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life.” (n. 14)
2. " ‘Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death….’ " (n. 17, quoting the Sacramentarium Gregorianum)
3. " ‘As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.’ " (n. 18, quoting the Byzantine liturgy)

Lorrie
4. “…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….” (n. 20, referring to the feast of the Assumption)

1. " ‘It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death.’ " (n. 21, quoting St. John Damascene)
2. " ‘…she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.’ " (n. 22, a quote attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem)
3. “Hence the revered Mother of God…finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven….” (n. 40)

In no less than three places, this same Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, also clearly refers to the Resurrection of the Virgin Mary:

1. “Thus, during the earliest period of scholastic theology, that most pious man, Amadeus, Bishop of Lausanne, held that the Virgin Mary’s flesh had remained incorrupt-for it is wrong to believe that her body has seen corruption-because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned with great glory in the heavenly courts.” (n. 28)
2. " ‘What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after death if he could?’ " (n. 35, quoting St. Francis of Sales)
3. " ‘…she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.’ " (n. 22, a quote attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem)

The death of the Virgin Mary is also taught in the Catholic Church in the east, again, non-infallibly.

I was given this information by several priests, who said that Eastern tradition holds more to the telling of her death. I believe she was exempt from the law of sin and death because of her sinless state. I am free to believe that under our faith…and of course believe in her bodily assumption to heaven.

If Elijah can go to heaven without dying (rumors in the Jewish faith say that Moses did too) then surely she can. Interestingly enough, the two who are said to have gone to heaven without dying (Elijah for sure and possibly Moses) were the ones who appeared to with Jesus at his transfiguration. Anyway, Elijah didn’t die so surely the Mother of God, who was sinless, could certainly go without death as well.

God was clear that when mankind ate of the tree “in that day you shall surely die” and that is the penalty of sin. Mary never had that original sin stain on her soul, never sinned, and therefore was not subject to death. I believe that’s precisely WHY she was taken to heaven in her body. I have a high view of Mary, I don’t worship her, but my Marion devotion is very strong and I see this as consistent with her sinless state.

Romans 5:12
12. “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death resulted from sin, therefore everyone dies, because everyone has sinned.”

This is simple cause and effect. Mary did not sin, therefore she did not die. Her son’s salvation, her obedience, her sinless state and her being the ark of the covenant, the Mother of God prevented her from dying (a direct result of our sin).

Regardless of whether she did or not, she is my Mother, and I hope she will always pray for me. I can use all her intercessions, believe me,

Lorrie

Lorrie

 

[Hypnotoad]

Two people have stated that death is punishment for sin. I don’t think so.

If anything, it is a result of sin, the consequence of original sin. Original sin disrupted the natural order of creation in which there was no death.

I don’t think that death is punishment.

-Tim-

Yes! This is how I see it. I believe Mary’s death was an act of love since she submitted to the consequence of sin even though she didn’t need to, just like she did with the purification rituals in the temple. How I see it is Mary was giving her children (us) the perfect example of the Imitation of Christ, her Son who died for us out of love even though he didn’t need to.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

It seems to me that Mary’s death would be a further testament to the unity between the Mother and her Son. Although she certainly didn’t have to die in order to accomplish God’s plan of salvation, she is united with Jesus in the experience of death as she was so united in every other aspect of her life. She walked the path He walked and it males me love and respect her all the more. Some mystics say that the Lord gave her the choice to die or not and she chose death because He did. Of course, we are under no obligation to believe in mystics. However, the thought of that kind of unity seems to fit more with who Mary always showed herself to be. These are just random thoughts on the subject and nothing binding, however more compelling than this is that the overwhelming evidence that the Church always taught that she died. This, combined with Blessed JPII’s letter, settles the matter for me personally.

 

[LegoGE1947]

It seems to me that Mary’s death would be a further testament to the unity between the Mother and her Son. Although she certainly didn’t have to die in order to accomplish God’s plan of salvation, she is united with Jesus in the experience of death as she was so united in every other aspect of her life. She walked the path He walked and it males me love and respect her all the more. Some mystics say that the Lord gave her the choice to die or not and she chose death because He did. Of course, we are under no obligation to believe in mystics. However, the thought of that kind of unity seems to fit more with who Mary always showed herself to be. These are just random thoughts on the subject and nothing binding, however more compelling than this is that the overwhelming evidence that the Church always taught that she died. This, combined with Blessed JPII’s letter, settles the matter for me personally.

Mary’s Assumption was not the historic first time something like this happened The Old Testament speaks of at least three instances where someone was assumed. Enoch “who walked with God and was not for God took him.” Elijah who was whisked away in a fiery chariot. And Moses who died but no one knows where he was buried.

 

[thistle]

Teachings can and do change: Priestly celibacy, the sun rotates around the earth. You can laugh but the Church censured and tried people for heresy over this. I think we see that the Church can and does breathe and grow in terms of teachings. Some things become more doctrine when we see that these were always beliefs, just not fully actualized and understood as such. Dogma does not change although the Church can and does move things to Dogma (Immaculate Conception, Assumption) that, while previously held, were not official Dogma of the Church. Doctrinal issues are just under Dogma and many times are declared Dogma but are not dogma. All dogma are doctrines. I always tell people the easy way to remember most Dogma is what is taught in the Creeds and the dogma regarding the Blessed Mother: Immaculate Conception; Assumption.

Canon Law 752 says: “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…”

So…you can live in submission to the Church (submitting to it’s teachings) even though you are not quite able to give an assent of faith when it’s a DOCTRINE/TEACHING…this would NOT be mortal sin. My priest said that as long as I am not out telling others NOT to believe it, and I’m sincerely TRYING, and I’m practicing my faith to the very best of my ability I am not in mortal sin. Believe me I have OCD I totally OVER blow what I’m guilty of in that regard so I’m not letting myself off easy. I have beat myself up over these struggles to the brink of self destruction so I had to get priestly help. I have been working with priests off and on in regards to some of these questions.

One priest showed me Canon Law 747 Paragraph 1: “All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.” He said that many Catholics take years and years ‘coming to know’ what is truth and trusting the Church really does hold that truth. He further said there is no sin if it is legitimately a case where, due to abuse/maltreatment/abuse of authority one cannot 100% assent to the Catholic faith immediately and may never be able to fully assent to all its teachings/doctrines. I have no problem with what is taught as Dogma but there are a few things I cannot fully assent to but the priest said that by my submitting to the Church as I can and fulfilling my Sunday obligations, attending daily Mass, and having a strong devotional life that I will continue to grow in my faith.

I think many who make these “rants” are afraid. What are you afraid of? If I’m earnestly seeking the truth and open to it, then it’s going to happen, right? That doesn’t mean I’m in mortal sin, that merely means I’m growing and learning. If I refuse to be open to the truth and refuse to study and listen and read/learn then that’s different. I’m not refusing, I just can’t say I agree with a couple of the teachings at this time. I willingly live in submission to the Church until such time that I can say for certain I agree with her.

My problem is the word REJECTION. Just because I cannot affirm something as “I believe” does not mean I reject it. Telling people this is beating them over the head. Rebellion is one thing, but I see most who say they don’t agree with something as struggling, not deliberately rejecting something. My priest knows what I cannot say yes to and he’s OK with it. I am not in a state of mortal sin, I am in a state of being human, learning, and growing. I just finished reading the entire collection of JPII’s Theology of the Body. If anyone is trying harder to resolve their issues I’d like to meet them.

I guess since we are off target I want to make it clear that I totally believe and affirm the Church’s teaching’s on the Blessed Mother both her Immaculate Conception and Assumption. I don’t want someone reading this to think I’m debating that because I am not. I have a very strong devotion to my Mother and she has helped me resolve many of my disagreements with the Church and gently continues to lead me to her Son. Never having a love mother in my life, she is my Mother in every way.

If anyone struggles with something that the Church teaches talk to your priest, get some readings, pray, learn all you can and don’t freak out. You are NOT committing a mortal sin if you are open and willing to grow in your understanding of truth. Some of us don’t have the mentality that lets us jump into something with blind faith. I see those who can as blessed with a special grace. I’ve asked for it and asked for it and tried to do it myself but I can’t. So I am going to carry my cross and keep moving forward.

Blessings to all,

Lorrie

You don’t seem to understand the difference between doctrine (teaching) and discipline.
Doctrines CANNOT change. Disciplines CAN change. Priestly celibacy, for example, is a discipline and not a doctrine.

 

[LegoGE1947]

You don’t seem to understand the difference between doctrine (teaching) and discipline.
Doctrines CANNOT change. Disciplines CAN change. Priestly celibacy, for example, is a discipline and not a doctrine.

I suppose doctrine and discipline could be confusing to some folks. After all, they both begin with the letter “D”

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Mary’s Assumption was not the historic first time something like this happened The Old Testament speaks of at least three instances where someone was assumed. Enoch “who walked with God and was not for God took him.” Elijah who was whisked away in a fiery chariot. And Moses who died but no one knows where he was buried.

Yes, I am aware Enoch and Elijah. I certainly do not doubt that God could have taken Mary up without her having died first as with those two OT men. (Moses was not assumed according to the Scriptures; Dt 34:5-6 says he died and was buried, plus Jude 9 talks about his body being disputed by Archangel Michael and Satan. I am aware that there are talmudic references to an assumption of Moses. Wouldn’t it be fascinating if he was assumed after death, like Mary? We can’t know, of course.)

Anyway, my point was only that it seems more in line with Mary’s character to have been united with Jesus in the experience of death. That was merely an opinion on my part (which was largely formed after reading Blessed John Paul’s thoughts on the matter). Additionally, it is clear that the Church has consistently taught that Mary died prior to being assumed into heaven.

 

[Irishgal49]

I suppose doctrine and discipline could be confusing to some folks. After all, they both begin with the letter “D”

It’s so helpful that when you need some direction (that starts with D too) as well as the word DIGNITY. The word Disrespect comes to mind and it’s sad that when a group who all love the Blessed Mother equally begin an open DISCUSSION that instead of someone being kind they are rude. The nice thing is, I know that someone will handle those remarks as we all answer for everything we say and do.