Did Mary die?

[pnewton]

Interesting. Then we have two conflicting locations.

Personally, I am inclined to go with the Orthodox teaching on this and believe it is both apt and a greater tradition that she died.

There is another thread on this in the Eastern Catholicism section. Sure enough, there are two competing locations, one a tomb and one a house. The Ephesian location is the one held in Roman Catholic tradition and the Jerusalem tomb in the Byzantine tradition. So, the answer to the question is that Roman Catholics are not bound to believe that Mary died as the matter of the faith. This is what you will consistently here from priests, apologists and theologians. Even if there are some that disagree, the amount of disagreement should be obvious enough to show that some freedom of thought is allowed in this.

If I am mistaken, I would except being shown from the CCC where it states that Mary died.

 

[Nicholas82]

There is another thread on this in the Eastern Catholicism section. Sure enough, there are two competing locations, one a tomb and one a house. The Ephesian location is the one held in Roman Catholic tradition and the Jerusalem tomb in the Byzantine tradition. So, the answer to the question is that Roman Catholics are not bound to believe that Mary died as the matter of the faith. This is what you will consistently here from priests, apologists and theologians. Even if there are some that disagree, the amount of disagreement should be obvious enough to show that some freedom of thought is allowed in this.

If I am mistaken, I would except being shown from the CCC where it states that Mary died.

If priests, apologists and theologions choose to ignore the obvious for no good reason except than that they feel they have the freedom to do so that is their own fault.

 

[pnewton]

If priests, apologists and theologions choose to ignore the obvious for no good reason except than that they feel they have the freedom to do so that is their own fault.

Boy, does that every beg the question. No one is ignoring anything just because they may not agree with you. Is the CCC also wrong? Until someone show there to be an official postition in the Catholic Church, I for one will ignore at least one source: internet posters. We have the Catechism so we can have a norm for teaching, not just a paper weight. It is nowhere state there that Mary died.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Well, according to the accounts she knew the birth was imminent, that means to me she had the onset of labor. She felt the baby pushing or she felt contractions, something was signaling the change to her. To go through that and then have the baby pop bloodlessly out of her hip doesn’t make any sense.

I think that she was a real mother in every important way, not exempted.

*On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: “In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain.”

*I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man “was born into the world,” according to Isaiah 35:1-2: “Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 35 A6

 

[eelpis]

The miraculous birth of Christ, is part of Catholic faith. The virgin gave birth to The Author of Life without corruption.

 

[Biblioassistant]

Oh I believe most strongly in the Virgin Birth and in the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, I believe she gave birth to Jesus just like any normal woman would. After all, Jesus was a man like us in all things save sin, which would mean he was born like we are.

I also believe the Blessed Mother died and was assumed into heaven. After all, her Son died and the Mother is not greater than the Son.

 

[Joe_5859]

I wrote this in a similar thread a few days ago. I will just copy and paste:

In the beginning of the document:

1. …] 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.”

More:20. …] [The church fathers] 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.

Just search for “death” in the text of the document.

Thanks for that. I was searching for the word “die”, not “death”, so that’s why I didn’t find anything.

 

[pnewton]

The dogma, as proclaimed by the Church.
**

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.

In the course of this document, both her death and her dormition are referred to as evidence that the assumption has always been believed. Therefore her death (and her dormition) are mentioned in the document, but neither was incorprated into the dogma. **

 

[cothrige]

The dogma, as proclaimed by the Church.
**In the course of this document, both her death and her dormition are referred to as evidence that the assumption has always been believed. Therefore her death (and her dormition) are mentioned in the document, but neither was incorprated into the dogma. **

This sounds a bit specious to me. One cannot reject the evidence of a dogma and still maintain it supports the dogma. The Pope founded his definition on the evidence of the Dormition, and so it would seem necessary to equate that the acceptance of the Dormition through history is not something we can simply toss aside because it pleases us less than the Assumption.

We should recall what the situation was just before the definition itself by Pius XII. Did the Church believe in the Assumption? Yes, of course. Otherwise the Pope was making up new dogma, which is impossible. Did the Church also equally accept the Dormition? Also yes. So, what changed? Nothing beyond a formal pronouncement on the Assumption, which for whatever reason the Holy Father felt needed to be done. And did that act undefine the Dormition? Absolutely not.

That means that the Dormition should be accepted by Catholics today in exactly the same way the Assumption was before the writing of Munificentissimus Deus. Nothing has changed between then and now regarding the Dormtion. It should be held in the same way now that it was then, which was in just the same manner that the Assumption was. And since not too many Catholics at that time were likely to have been going around saying that the Assumption was not true, I cannot imagine being comfortable doing it for the Dormition now.

 

[Dan-Man916]

One thing that Roman Catholics could really benefit from is a knowledge of the Eastern traditions and iconography.
All iconography of the dormition shows that the Theotokos died. Dormition means to fall asleep, but that is just a euphemisim for death.

Iconography is the tradition of the Church, not just artwork, so the fact that she is depicted as dying means that that is the belief of the entire Church, not just Orthodoxy.

Here is a link for anyone not familiar with the Icon of the Dormition:
flickr.com/photos/19016362@N00/1122382992/

 

[pnewton]

This sounds a bit specious to me. One cannot reject the evidence of a dogma and still maintain it supports the dogma.

Sure. The Catholic Church does it all the time, since the time of Paul at the Acropolis. He used pagan worship as evidence of God. The fact remains, Mary’s death was not included in the dogma. It is not included in the CCC. It is not necessary for a Catholic to believe it to avoid heresy. I think the evidence it very good, but if another Catholic does not, that would be acceptable .

 

[Dan-Man916]

Mary’s death was not included in the dogma. It is not included in the CCC. It is not necessary for a Catholic to believe it to avoid heresy. I think the evidence it very good, but if another Catholic does not, that would be acceptable .

I think it can be dangerous to conclude that anything not specifically dogmatically defined can be an open theological opinion. The tradition of the Church has always been that she died. Why do we want to reduce tradition to mere opinion or pious belief?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I think it can be dangerous to conclude that anything not specifically dogmatically defined can be an open theological opinion. The tradition of the Church has always been that she died. Why do we want to reduce tradition to mere opinion or pious belief?

 

[eelpis]

I think it can be dangerous to conclude that anything not specifically dogmatically defined can be an open theological opinion. The tradition of the Church has always been that she died. Why do we want to reduce tradition to mere opinion or pious belief?

I understand what you mean. The faith is not just thead-bare dogma.

But I think it’s important to remember that theological debate is a means of deepening the faith.

 

[pnewton]

I think it can be dangerous to conclude that anything not specifically dogmatically defined can be an open theological opinion. The tradition of the Church has always been that she died. Why do we want to reduce tradition to mere opinion or pious belief?

Absolutely! But then we are not talking about anything and everything here but one specific topic, where a dogmatic definition exists, and on an issue that is far from critical to the faith.

“Bishop Theoteknos of Livias (c. 550-650)

"For Christ took His immaculate flesh from the immaculate flesh of Mary, and if He had prepared a place in heaven for the Apostles, how much more for His mother; if Enoch had been translated and Elijah had gone to heaven, how much more Mary, who like the moon in the midst of the stars shines forth and excels among the prophets and Apostles?

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=73570&highlight=mary

What I find telling is how easy it would have been to define her death, yet this was not done. Again, I do not see this as critical to the faith, whereas obstinate denial of the assumption would be heresy.

 

[eelpis]

Oh I believe most strongly in the Virgin Birth and in the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, I believe she gave birth to Jesus just like any normal woman would. After all, Jesus was a man like us in all things save sin, which would mean he was born like we are.

I also believe the Blessed Mother died and was assumed into heaven. After all, her Son died and the Mother is not greater than the Son.

So I guess you believe He walked on ice instead of water.

Because if He walked on water that would be as great as if He had been born of His mother without injury to her bodily virginity.

Demythologizing is out.

 

[mullenpm]

Why, as Catholics, can we not just believe?

Why must we always intellectualize?:grouphug:

 

[pnewton]

Why, as Catholics, can we not just believe?

Why must we always intellectualize?:grouphug:

Absolutely.

We believe in God, the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen…

Of course we must believe. But what is it we must believe? That is the question. Our norm, besides the Creeds, is the Catechism.

 

[Dan-Man916]

What I find telling is how easy it would have been to define her death, yet this was not done.

I think that you have to look at how the Church does things. If there is no need to define something, the Church isn’t going to do it very often. This is especially true in the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Their fundamental way of looking at things is not to dogmatize everything. I think that we are more used to that sort of mindset in Western Christendom. Neither is bad, and neither is wrong. They are just two complimentary ways of approaching the faith.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

It is a “non-essential” since there are varying traditions throughout the Church. The essentials are in the dogma.