The problems it would cause are a conflict with the Immaculate Conception and sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, I said earlier that I was of the opinion of there not being natural death in the world before the fall of Adam, that is an legitimate opinion to hold as a Catholic and as far as I am aware also for the Orthodox, but you would know more about that. “Come now, let us reason together” The Virgin Mary could not die a natural death if she had no sin, if she was born into the original state of righteousness, the same state Adam was created in, then there is no reason to believe that Adam was going to die if he didn’t fall, the same must be concluded for the Blessed Mother. So Unless you want to argue that the fall refers to spiritual death only, then on those grounds it’s fine to say the Blessed Mother died naturally.
We teach (both of us as far as I know) “Christ Victorious”, that with his crucifixion Christ conquered death for all who would believe in, and follow him. We hold to this belief in spite of the fact that people still clearly die. We don’t take this to mean they lacked faith, rather that the conquest over death was not one that would see an end to aging or bodily decay (and I mean decay while alive, I’m not going to get into incorruptible bodies here).
I would hesitate to say that the death that was conquered was spiritual, but I don’t believe we’ll truly see what form the conquest took until after death.
I’ve digressed a little, but I suppose what I’m trying to get at is that Christ conquered death, so any issues with the Theotokos not being able to die due to sinlessness, would also apply to everyone else due to the victory of Christ.
As far as the magisterium is concerned it has not defined Mary’s death as de fide and until such point in time I stand to say that she did not die, also good to note that the tradition of her death comes from apocryphal sources, and even though they are a good way of understanding what Christians had believed at the time we cannot be expected to believe in every detail of those stories as the assurance that it came from the apostles can not be verified, and so until the Church speaks definitely on the subject these are my opinions.
It has not attached an anathema to disagreement, as it has with the assumption itself. But does it need to do that before you’ll agree it is a teaching of the church? As I noted previously, the bull, Munificentissimus Deus, clearly mentions the tradition that she died. While another poster here claimed that it also mentions a tradition that she did not, I have been unable to find that, or to see any evidence of such a reference.
The tradition of her death may come from “apocryphal” sources, but so does the tradition of her assumption. That is a self defeating argument. Much of Holy Tradition comes from extra-biblical sources.
And the final point about conclusions, the magisterium allows people to come to their own conclusions on matters and when it is so inclined, it will teach us which opinions are acceptable and which are contrary to the faith.
I am also of the belief that the most simplest mind can teach the most profound truth, and we should never dismiss the ideas of those that we deem less learned than ourselves, unless any such idea absolutely contradicts the Faith.
Its funny, I’m usually on the other side of this particular argument. I can only go by how the Orthodox Church works, but the Church has a teaching on most issues, even secondary issues (such as this), and while the secondary issues aren’t required belief, it is expected that people strive toward believing, and don’t publicly preach otherwise.
