Did Our Blessed Mother Die?

[Mannyfit75]

Far be it from me to contradict a saint, but this is incorrect, is it not? Weren’t Elijah and Moses assumed into heaven as well?

It would but I would be cautious to statements made by “private revelations” I don’t believe that statement. What I believe is what the Church’s teaches on divine revelation… The death of Mary, her resurrection, and her assumption is what is revealed.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Shoemaker never gave that interpretation of Genesis 3:16. His book is centered on dealing with the historical accounts, he has translated 60 such accounts form 9 different languages. Based on those accounts it is clear that Mary did in fact die before her assumption.

That interpretation of Genesis 3:16 comes straight out of the Hebrew. Also, some of your fellow catholics have taught my understanding to get around Rev 12:2. For example,

No Mary did not sin nor was she born into sin or of sin. See I spent years listening to the arguements and still can go back to the fall in Genesis Both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims

Genesis ch3 vs 16

DOUAY-RHEIMS
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and they conceptions. In sorrow shall thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

The KJV also says multiply in fact it says “greatly multiply”. So it stands to reason that childbirth was never painless (remember something large comes out of something small ) But after the fall in Eden the pain was made worse.

So yes The Apocalypse of St John the Apostle can be referring to Mary. For Mary was not immune to all the pain of childbirth only those pains greatly multiplied due to original sin.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127048&page=9

So, if you have authoritve sources on both whom the Woman of Rev 12 is, and on the correct interpretation of Genesis 3:16, I will be interrested to read them.

I guess if I were defending your postion I would start with,

Reply to Objection 1: In the state of innocence child-bearing would have been painless: for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 26): “Just as, in giving birth, the mother would then be relieved not by groans of pain, but by the instigations of maturity, so in bearing and conceiving the union of both sexes would be one not of lustful desire but of deliberate action” *Cf. FP, Question [98], Article [2]].

catholicprimer.org/summa/SS/SS164.html

I was not able to trace down Augustine’s quote, maybe you can.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

Far be it from me to contradict a saint, but this is incorrect, is it not? Weren’t Elijah and Moses assumed into heaven as well?

2 Kings 2:11 And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Although the word for heaven here means the sky as opposed to Heaven (with a capital H).

It is also said that St. Enoch went to heaven
Gen. 5:24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

But it says in th gospel of John

John 3:13 “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, … the Son of Man.”

So am not sure if others were in heaven when our Blessed Mother said this about her and Jesus being the only Bodies in Heaven. It’s difficult to say from the Bible alone, so maybe somone can throw some light on this from the teaching of the Magisterium or Church tradition (boy I love being Catholic!) lol

 

[Mannyfit75]

2 Kings 2:11 And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Although the word for heaven here means the sky as opposed to Heaven (with a capital H).

It is also said that St. Enoch went to heaven
Gen. 5:24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

But it says in th gospel of John

John 3:13 “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, … the Son of Man.”

So am not sure if others were in heaven when our Blessed Mother said this about her and Jesus being the only Bodies in Heaven. It’s difficult to say from the Bible alone, so maybe somone can throw some light on this from the teaching of the Magisterium or Church tradition (boy I love being Catholic!) lol

Huumph, interesting

 

[Good_Fella]

is

any **offical teaching **on whether or not she suffered pain during childbirth?

Thanks and God bless

The second dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary concerns her perpetual virginity.The dogma
of Mary’s perpetual virginity proclaims that the Blessed Virgin Mary was always a virgin before,
during, and after the birth of Jesus. This threefold character of Mary’s virginity was declared in
the definition of Pope Martin 1 at the Lateran Synod in 649 AD, where he pronounced as an
article of faith that:

“The Blessed ever-virginal and Immaculate Mary conceived, without seed, by the Holy Spirit,
and WITHOUT LOSS OF INTEGRITY BROUGHT HIM FORTH, and after his birth preserved her
virginity inviolate.”

Let us take a look at the second aspect of this dogma by Pope Martin 1, virginity during the birth of Jesus. The papal definition of Mary’s continued virginity during the birth of Christ refers to the actual time of birth. Jesus leaves the womb of his mother without impairing Mary’s physical virginity, just as he had entered her womb without the loss of her virginity. The Catholic Church understands Mary’s virginity during the birth of Christ as an absence of any physical violation or injury to Mary’s virginal seal through divine intervention.

The early Church Fathers taught the “miraculous birth” of Jesus resulted in no harm to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s physical integrity. St. Augustine stated, “It is not right that He who came to heal corruption should by his advent violate integrity.” St. Thomas Aquinas defended the miraculously painless birth of Jesus by stating, “As light passes through glass without harming it, so too did Jesus pass through the womb of Mary without the opening of Mary’s womb and without any harm to her virginal seal of the Virgin, who was pure and the perfect tabernacle of Christ.”

In his Papal Constitution, ‘Cum quorumdam hominum’ ( 7 August 1555), Pope Paul lV clearly admonished all those who denied that the Blessed Virgin Mary “did not retain her virginity before the birth, in the birth, and perpetually after the birth.”

The ‘Catechism of the Council of Trent’ provides this exposition:

“For in a way wonderful beyond expression or conception, he is born of his Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity. As he afterwards went forth from the sepulcher while it was closed…did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity…To Eve it was said, ‘In pain you shall bring forth children.’ (Gen 3:16) Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”

The Vatican ll Council confirms Mary’s virginity both before and during the birth of Jesus:

This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of
Christ’s virginal conception, then also at the birth of our Lord, who did not diminish mother’s virginal integrity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. [Lumen Gentium #57]

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

2 Kings 2:11 And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Although the word for heaven here means the sky as opposed to Heaven (with a capital H).

It is also said that St. Enoch went to heaven
Gen. 5:24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

But it says in th gospel of John

John 3:13 “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, … the Son of Man.”

So am not sure if others were in heaven when our Blessed Mother said this about her and Jesus being the only Bodies in Heaven. It’s difficult to say from the Bible alone, so maybe somone can throw some light on this from the teaching of the Magisterium or Church tradition (boy I love being Catholic!) lol

According to a Catholic theologian I know, the appearance of a body for Moses and Elijah
at the Transfiguration was just that, an appearance, for the sake of the apostles’ understanding
of who Christ truly was. Enoch and Elijah were probably transported to the original paradise created for Adam and Eve. They do not stand before God’s Beatific Vision in heaven in body and soul. The only human being to have preceded our own resurrection is Mary. Her Assumption into heaven should not be equated or confused with the transports of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah.

Mary has been privileged with this grace because she was conceived without original sin, unlike the Old Testament figures.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Daniel,

The following passages are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church with citations and
quotations from Holy Scriptures, notably the Second Creation Story in Genesis. The
Bible and the infallible teachings of the Church comprise the ultimate authority in
expounding the revealed truth. One cannot fail to see that what you say of Shoemaker’s
fallible interpretation of an isolated verse theologically contradicts basic Judeo-Christian
beliefs. Keep in mind that the word “pain” is “labour” and “toil” in the original Hebrew text.
It applies equally to Adam and Eve according to the author of Genesis.

To multiply is to intensify what originated with the Fall. Before Adam and Eve disobeyed God, there was nothing to intensify : not zero, but -1, no pain and suffering as opposed to +1, pain and suffering.In mathematics if we multiply a negative number by a positive number the product is a negative number. We are back to where we started from, a negative value: no pain and suffering. If we multiply positive 1, pain and suffering, by any other positive number which follows positive one, we have a greater amount of pain and suffering. We begin the increase of pain and suffering after the Fall occurs: point zero. Before this point, we have the value of the negative number, -1, no pain and suffering. Shoemaker overlooked the numerical value of negative numbers of the integer system. The Bible follows this line of mathematical reasoning. There is a negative value preceding zero: the negation of pain and suffering precedes the Fall and so cannot be multiplied. Once pain and suffering becomes positive following zero, it can be multiplied by other positive values that follow. And of course, there is no such thing as a little of positive one unless positive fractions do not exist, yet they in fact do exist, but after zero.The zero you draw finds its relative value in the negative number. Nothing positive comes from something negative. There cannot be a fraction of a positive number before zero: no fraction of suffering before the Fall, zero in its absolute value.

The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed
the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and
woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. (Cf. Gen 3:7-16) Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject to “its bondage to decay”. (Cf. Rom 8:21) Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true : man will return to the ground. (Cf. Gen 3:19; 2:17) for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. (Cf. Rom 5:12) [CC #400]

The Catholic Catechism continues: After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin.
There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in
the wake of sin…As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death… [CCC# 401; 418.]

Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us "the first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state which would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.(Cf. Council of Trent [1546]; Lumen Gentium 2]

"By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. (Gen 2:17) The inner harmony of the human person,the harmony between man and woman, (Cf. Gen 2:25) and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

"The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the
triple concupiscence (Cf. 1 Jn 2:16) that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses,
couvetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

"The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden. (Cf. Gen 2:8) There
he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden, (Cf. Gen 2:15) but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

"This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan (He did not plan pain and
suffering. Everything he created was originally good.) will be lost by the sin of our first parents.
[CCC#s 374-379]

I still have to get back to you about Mary and Rev. 12.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

Hey Good Fella!
Thanks!
You have been most helpful! :clapping:

Am looking forward to Rev 12 info

 

[Good_Fella]

Let us assume that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, the mother of Jesus, so we can resolve the issue without trying to skirt it. The following extract by Pope John Paul ll might just help us do that.

‘Mary’s Enmity Towards Satan Was Absolute’

‘Mary’s faithful cooperation in the saving work of her Son made it fitting that she should be completely free from sin and share fully in Christ’s grace.’

1. In the doctrinal reflections of the Eastern Church, the expression “full of grace” has been interpreted since the sixth century as a unique holiness which Mary enjoys throughout her existence. She thus initiates the new creation.

Along with Luke’s account of the Annunciation, Tradition and the Magisterium have seen in
the so-called ‘Protoevangelium’ (Gen 3:15) a scriptural source for the truth of Mary’s Immaculate
Conception. On the basis of the Latin version: “She will crush your head.”, this text inspired
many depictions of the Immaculata crushing the serpent under her feet.

(The Hebrew text) does not attribute the victory over Satan to Mary, but to her Son. But since
the biblical concept establishes a profound solidarity between the parent and the offspring, the depiction of the Immaculata crushing the serpent, not by her own power, but through the grace of her Son, is consistent with the original passage.

‘Mary Was Granted Power to Resist the Devil’

2.The same biblical text also proclaims the enmity between the woman and her offspring on the
one hand, and the serpent and his offspring on the other. This is a hostility expressly established by God, which has a unique importance…In order to be the irreconcilable enemy of the serpent and his offspring, (original sin) Mary had to be free from all power of sin, and to be so from the first moment of her existence…

The Absolute hostility put between the woman and the devil thus demands in Mary the Immaculate Conception, that is, a total absence of sin, from the very beginning of her life. The Son of Mary won the definitive victory over Satan and enabled his Mother to receive its benefits in advance by preserving her from sin. As a result, the Son granted her the power to resist the devil, thus achieving in the mystery the Immaculate Conception the most notable effect of his redeeming work.

1. By drawing our attention to Mary’s special holiness and her complete removal from Satan’s
   influence, (the curse of Eve) the title “full of grace” and the ‘Protoevangelium’ enable us
   to perceive, in the unique privilege the Lord granted to Mary, the beginning of a new order which
   is the result of friendship with God and which, as a consequence, entails a profound enmity between the serpent and men.

The 12th chapter of Revelation, which speaks of the “woman clothed in the sun” (12:1), is often
cited too as biblical testimony on behalf of the Immaculate Conception…She brought forth a
male child, “one who is to rule all nations with a rod of iron” (12:5).

Identified by her motherhood, “the woman was with child and cried out in her pangs of birth,
in anguish for her delivery” (12:2).This note refers to the Mother of Jesus at the Cross (Cf. Jn 19:25), where she shares in anguish for the delivery of the community of disciples with a soul pierced by the sword (Cf Luke 2:35). Despite her (spiritual) sufferings, she is “clothed with the sun” - that is she reflects the divine splendour - and appears as a “great sign” of God’s spousal relationship with his people.

Finally, Revelation invites us more particularly to recognize the ecclesial demension of Mary’s
personality: the woman clothed with the sun represents the Church’s holiness, which is fully
realized in the Holy Virgin by a singular grace…

Taken from ‘L’Osservatore Romano’, 5 June 1996, p.11

Please note that the sufferings of Mary Pope John Paul alludes to are part of her Seven Sorrows.The pain experienced by the woman in Revelation 12 is not to be taken literally as the physical suffering brougjht about by childbearing. Since God put her at enmity with Satan and original sin by her Immaculate Conception, she is immune to the “curse of Eve”. The Gospels present her morally suffering on account of her love for her Son, who is the unwilling passive cause of her spiritual sorrows. The suffering Mary experienced at the words of Simeon in the Temple (Cf Lk 2:35) is her First Sorrow; her standing at the foot of the Cross (Cf Jn 19:25) is her Fifth Sorrow.

Her Second Sorrow occured when she had to flee to Egypt with her Son because his life was
in danger. The Holy Family stayed in that foreign land for three and a half years. This event
is envisioned by John in Revelation 12:6. “The woman herself fled into the desert where she had
a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.”

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

Thanks Good Fella! And everyone else who’s helped!
I have found this stuff very interesting and helpful!
Sadly this will probably be the end of this thread, 'coz you can’t top that!

**I LOVE being Catholic! **

So, unless anyone else has any other comments?!
I’ll hope to meet you all around in some other threads!

Thank God for Mary!:dancing:

 

[Good_Fella]

Thanks Good Fella! And everyone else who’s helped!
I have found this stuff very interesting and helpful!
Sadly this will probably be the end of this thread, 'coz you can’t top that!

**I LOVE being Catholic! **

Thank God for Mary!:dancing:

You’re welcome, Pat the Cat. Perhaps we can pour a little more syrup on the sundae.

I believe Revelation 12:1-5 clearly shows Mary crowned in heaven. The woman in this passage
cannot be a personification of the Church. We all know that Jesus founded his Church; so it
makes no sense to say that the Church “gave birth” to Jesus. If that were the case, then
the Muslims could be right that the authors of the Gospels made up stories and put words
into Jesus’ mouth. Still Protestant scholars insist that the woman of Revelation 12 is a female
symbol of the Church, as the bride of Christ, because admitting otherwise would amount to
accepting the Catholic dogma of the Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven. Besides,
even where the Church is represented as the bride of Christ, a woman fails to appear. What
John envisions is a glorious city - the new Jerusalem [Cf.Rev 21:9-10] Finally, in other books of
the New Testament and in the Gospels Mary is referred to as “woman”. The Church is a
bride, but she is not a woman.

Indeed, the woman with child is introduced as a “great sign in Heaven”. We find a similar
instance of a woman announced as a “sign” in the Book of Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore, the Lord
himself will give you a sign. The Virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son.” John’s
vision is a confirmation that the prophecy of Isaiah has been truly fulfilled. Further, this passage
is a vision depicting the significance of Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and
the woman, and between your offspring and hers; she will strike at your head, while you
strike at her heel.” [Latin Vulgate] Both the dragon and the serpent symbolize Satan.
Revelation 12 more obviously represents the Virgin Mary and her Son, Jesus, than it does
the Church

There may also be subsidiary meanings to the figure of the woman. Mary, although
the mother of Jesus, is also part of the Church and Mother of all Christians [Cf. Jn 19:15-27;
Rev 12:17] The twelve stars probably represent the twelve apostles, if not also the
twelve tribes of Israel whom the apostles themselves represent. The Book of Judith pre-
figures the Blessed Virgin Mary as the “true daughter of Israel” (the twelve tribes), of the
royal line of David, making Mary a queen who wears a crown of twelve stars. [Cf. 13:17-20]
The Protestant reformers removed this Old Testament book from the Bible,along with six other
deuterocanonical books, for they believed it was not divinely inspired. Obviously they
rejected this book because it supported Catholic doctrine on the queenship of Mary. Our
heavenly Queen and Mother, nontheless, is revealed as a key transition and link between
Israel and the Church.

“Be faithful even unto death and I will give you the crown of life.” [Rev 2:10]

Revelation 12 is a sign that our Lord intends to keep this promise. It is right that the Mother
of our Lord should be the first person to realize it.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

You’re welcome, Pat the Cat. Perhaps we can pour a little more syrup on the sundae.

“Be faithful even unto death and I will give you the crown of life.” [Rev 2:10]

Revelation 12 is a sign that our Lord intends to keep this promise. It is right that the Mother
of our Lord should be the first person to realize it.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

So true! I suppose that Jesus was keeping the commandment of “Honour thy Mother”! What greater honour could He have given her?

If it’s ok for Jesus to honour Mary, and we are supposed to do as we see him do, then it makes perfect sense to give her as much honour! AMEN!

I was just reading through some of the recent threads and came upon this

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=163946

There’s some anti-Catholic who gave a testimony that somone needs refuting!
Part of the testimony was that Catholics believe Mary died and ascended like Jesus! Man, these crazies! I’ll have to go on to that thread and lead our brothers and sisters to this awsome thread where they might learn (as I did) the truth about Mary! lol
Thanks again