Jesus and Mary Immortal

[MamaGeek]

We believe that when God created Adam and Eve they were meant to live forever, and that through original sin, the human state was changed forever, allowing death and suffering.

Jesus and Mary were both conceived without sin as the new Adam and the new Eve. It occurred to me that they must be immortal, as the first man and woman before the Fall. This idea seems to work well with the Assumption, since bodily raising Mary into Heaven was the only way for her to leave the earth. Likewise for the Ascension, although Jesus’ divinity could preempt His bodily restrictions after the Resurrection.

 

[RyanL]

Well…it’s tough to say. There is a (lower case ‘t’) tradition that Mary died, and there is a tradition that she did not. The majority of these (lower case ‘t’) traditions is that she did die, but it’s not a given. In defining dogma, the Church was purposefully vague. The Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that:

“the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things.”

“When the completion of her earthy life was over…” This does not mean “died”, and does not mean “did not die”. If I am not mistaken, we are free to believe either option (but neither is binding).

God bless,
RyanL

 

[John_Henry]

MamaGeek:

This idea seems to work well with the Assumption, since bodily raising Mary into Heaven was the only way for her to leave the earth.

Except that you will note that the wording of the proclamation of the Assumption leaves very open the possibility that our Lady died. And presumably that is because a pretty good concensus throughout history has been that she did, indeed, die. The question then becomes, how can she have died, in light of the salient questions you raise. There appears to be a very thorough look into that question here:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=469

 

[tuopaolo]

RyanL:

Well…it’s tough to say. There is a (lower case ‘t’) tradition that Mary died, and there is a tradition that she did not.

I think probably you are using the word “tradition” in the sense of stories or legends with more or less weight (like a tradition as to where St John died or something like that). But whether or not Mary died is not simply a question of history backed up by this or that “tradition.” It’s a doctrinal question – i.e. a theological question with theological, not just historical, arguments pro and con.

The word “tradition” is also sometimes in the sense of custom like the tradition of ringing bells in Mass (which is not common anymore). But whether or not Mary died is not a question of custom, but a question of fact and a fact that is of doctrinal import. But I doubt you were using the word “tradition” in this sense.

The fact of whether or not Mary died is likely a datum of Divine Revelation and thus of Sacred Tradition and/or Sacred Scripture – at the very least it is something that flows from divine revelation, i.e. implictly derived (one way or the other) from revelation.

In defining dogma, the Church was purposefully vague. The Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that

The dogma was actually defined prior to the Second Vatican Council.

If I am not mistaken, we are free to believe either option (but neither is binding).

I agree with that. We are free provided as with all things we believe with prudence and are not dismissive of the weight of the theological tradition for or against.

 

[Della]

Actually, it is not at all clear that Adam and Eve could not have died. God, and it seems the angels (and demons), are immortal beings, but human beings are not and never were.

Immortal means one cannot die. God did not give Adam and Eve immortality. He created them to be eternal beings not immortals. If he had made them immortals like himself, they would have to have lived as condemned beings, like the demons, with no hope of redemption.

When Jesus redeemed us he opened the door once again to eternal life as resurrected, restored human beings. But, he did not confer immortality upon Mary or anyone else. I hope that helps you!

 

[gelsbern]

Della:

Actually, it is not at all clear that Adam and Eve could not have died. God, and it seems the angels (and demons), are immortal beings, but human beings are not and never were.

Immortal means one cannot die. God did not give Adam and Eve immortality. He created them to be eternal beings not immortals. If he had made them immortals like himself, they would have to have lived as condemned beings, like the demons, with no hope of redemption.

You are actually correct, Adam and Eve were not made imortal, if we look at the Genisis for the story of the fall of man we see…

Genesis 3:22, 23-24 Douay-Rheims 1899

22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

23 And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. 24 And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

This plainly states that man was not created with an immortal body.

The ONLY thing immortal that we were created with is our souls.

 

[Della]

gelsbern:

You are actually correct, Adam and Eve were not made imortal, if we look at the Genisis for the story of the fall of man we see…

This plainly states that man was not created with an immortal body.

The ONLY thing immortal that we were created with is our souls.

It’s always great to hear that I’ve gotten something right! Thanks!

Of course, our souls didn’t exist before our bodies were formed in the womb, so technically speaking, our souls are eternal, not immortal.

 

[Matt16_18]

MamaGeek:

We believe that when God created Adam and Eve they were meant to live forever, and that through original sin, the human state was changed forever, allowing death and suffering

Jesus and Mary were both conceived without sin as the new Adam and the new Eve. It occurred to me that they must be immortal, as the first man and woman before the Fall. This idea seems to work well with the Assumption, since bodily raising Mary into Heaven was the only way for her to leave the earth. Likewise for the Ascension, although Jesus’ divinity could preempt His bodily restrictions after the Resurrection.

If Jesus was immortal, then how did he die on the Cross? We affirm in the creed that Jesus “suffered, died, and was buried”. To deny that Jesus suffered a mortal death, is to deny the Resurrection - in fact, it is to deny the whole of Christianity. A Muslim might believe that Jesus did not die on the Cross, but a Christian cannot believe this.

If Jesus was not immortal, then why should we assume that Mary was immortal?

 

[Matt16_18]

Della:

Actually, it is not at all clear that Adam and Eve could not have died. God, and it seems the angels (and demons), are immortal beings, but human beings are not and never were.

Immortal means one cannot die. God did not give Adam and Eve immortality.

Whoa! The Catholic Church has always taught that Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gifts before the Fall, and one these preternatural gifts was the gift of bodily immortality.

Jesus is true man and true God. The preternatural gifts are not necessary to possess to be a true man. Jesus obviously did not possess the preternatural gift of bodily immortality when he became incarnate. It is only after Jesus resurrected from the dead that he took on an immortal physical body.

 

[Della]

Matt16_18:

Whoa! The Catholic Church has always taught that Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gifts before the Fall, and one these preternatural gifts was the gift of bodily immortality.

Jesus is true man and true God. The preternatural gifts are not necessary to possess to be a true man. Jesus obviously did not possess the preternatural gift of bodily immortality when he became incarnate. It is only after Jesus resurrected from the dead that he took on an immortal physical body.

While the word immortality is used, it is very narrowly defined by the Catholic encyclopedia:

The doctrine of immortality, strictly or properly understood, means personal immortality, the endless conscious existence of the individual soul. It implies that the being which survives shall preserve its personal identity and be connected by conscious memory with the previous life.

But the word immortal is a bit misleading. What Adam and Eve truly had was eternal life not immortality, in the strict sense of the word. They could have (and did) lose their eternal life through choosing to go against God’s law.

Immoral beings, such as angels, chose from the moment of their creation whether or not they would serve God, and their decision was immutable because they are immortal beings who live outside of time and so cannot change their state of being any further.

 

[Matt16_18]

gelsbern:

You are actually correct, Adam and Eve were not made imortal, if we look at the Genisis for the story of the fall of man we see… This plainly states that man was not created with an immortal body.

The scriptures you quoted teach that Adam and Eve lost the preternatural gift of bodily immortality because of their willful disobedience, not that they never had the preternatural gift of bodily immortality. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would not have lost the preternatural gifts.And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
Gen. 2:16-17

Obedience to God, life - disobedience to God, death.Adam and Eve lost the preternatural gift of bodily immortality by committing sin. This is significant, because the loss of bodily immortality is a type that points to an antitype. As Christians, we receive the supernatural gift of eternal life through the Sacrament of Baptism. The preternatural gift of bodily immortality is a type that points to the antitype of the supernatural gift of eternal life. The loss of bodily immortality by original sin is a type that points to the antitype of mortal sin.

Just as Adam lost the preternatural gift of bodily immortality by committing the original sin, Christians can lose the supernatural gift of eternal life by committing mortal sin. Mortal sin inflicts a mortal wound, and what mortal sin kills in humans is the eternal life that abides within. That is why John says that anyone whose name is not found in the Book of Life will suffer the second death at the final Judgement. The first death is the mortal death that all humans suffer; the death of the body, a death that was brought into the world by original sin. Humans that suffer the second death will have immortal bodies that are eternally consumed in the lake of fire.

OSAS fundamentalist Protestants often state that because the bible teaches that those who accept Jesus have eternal life, that this means that eternal life cannot be lost, i.e. “If eternal life can be lost then it is not eternal, Duh!” But that lame argument is simply is not correct, because just as Adam was immortal and lost his immortality by sinning, so too can Christians have eternal life and then lose their eternal life by committing mortal sin.

As an aside to this, there are only two people mentioned in the Bible that are said to have never died – Enoch and Elijah. There is a tradition in the Catholic Church that Enoch and Elijah are the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation. Enoch and Elijah are still mortal beings since the are children of the Fall. Enoch and Elijah will return to Earth from the terrestrial Paradise to die as martyrs in Jerusalem just before the end of the world.

 

[Matt16_18]

Della:

… the word immortal is a bit misleading. What Adam and Eve truly had was eternal life not immortality, in the strict sense of the word. They could have (and did) lose their eternal life through choosing to go against God’s law.

PRETERNATURAL GIFTS. Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title -infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary - John A. Hardon, S.J.

Immoral beings, such as angels, chose from the moment of their creation whether or not they would serve God, and their decision was immutable because they are immortal beings who live outside of time and so cannot change their state of being any further.

After Adam was created from the dust of the Paradise, had to learn what was in his world, and then name the animals he found dwelling there. This shows that even before the Fall, that Adam had the ability to learn by observing and studying.

Angels are created with a different type of intelligence than man; it is a higher intelligence that already has knowledge without having to learn. When the rebel angels made their decision to follow Lucifer, it was with full knowledge of the intellect and full consent of the will that they committed their rebellion. It is the difference in the type of intelligence possessed by angels and men that make fallen angels unredeemable, and fallen men redeemable. Man can rightly claim ignorance as a factor in their sinning, but angels cannot.

“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

 

[rwoehmke]

One way in which Jesus may have been different from us is that He chose to take on the fleshly body of a human being and he chose to die. Those are choices we do not make, suicide being exceptional in that the suicide decides when to die, but none of us have any choice in the matter. Sooner or later we die.

 

[RyanL]

tuopaolo,
…you’re killing me…

tuopaolo:

I think probably you are using the word “tradition” in the sense of stories or legends with more or less weight (like a tradition as to where St John died or something like that).

Yes, that is how I was using the word.

tuopaolo:

The word “tradition” is also sometimes in the sense of custom like the tradition of ringing bells in Mass (which is not common anymore). But whether or not Mary died is not a question of custom, but a question of fact and a fact that is of doctrinal import. But I doubt you were using the word “tradition” in this sense.

Correct - not a custom, as Mary dying (or not) cannot be a custom. At most, it can only be an event that happened once, and not to be repeated ad infinitum (which is more-or-less the definition of a “custom”).

tuopaolo:

The fact of whether or not Mary died is likely a datum of Divine Revelation and thus of Sacred Tradition and/or Sacred Scripture – at the very least it is something that flows from divine revelation, i.e. implictly derived (one way or the other) from revelation.

Datum of Divine Revelation? I have to throw the flag on this one. I have never seen a biblical exegesis of her non-death attempted by anyone of serious theological significance, nor have I seen a consistant and persistant singular tradition in our common christian history as to believe that this is a quantifiable source of information from which can be derived a clear reference point (i.e., datum) from which to draw any significant theological weight. For that matter, neither has the Church, as she has failed to even imply either way - much less dogmatically define the absolute.

tuopaolo:

The dogma was actually defined prior to the Second Vatican Council.

I didn’t claim it was. I stated that when it was defined it was vague, and to illustrate that I quoted the teachings of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. It was formally defined in the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII.

tuopaolo:

I agree with that. We are free provided as with all things we believe with prudence and are not dismissive of the weight of the theological tradition for or against.

When Holy Mother Church tells me that this is of significant theological weight, I will believe her. Until then, I don’t really see that it matters one way or another.
Finally, please quit sniping my posts. Thank you, and God bless.

RyanL

 

[gelsbern]

PRETERNATURAL GIFTS. Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title -infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary - John A. Hardon, S.J.

After Adam was created from the dust of the Paradise, had to learn what was in his world, and then name the animals he found dwelling there. This shows that even before the Fall, that Adam had the ability to learn by observing and studying.

Angels are created with a different type of intelligence than man; it is a higher intelligence that already has knowledge without having to learn. When the rebel angels made their decision to follow Lucifer, it was with full knowledge of the intellect and full consent of the will that they committed their rebellion. It is the difference in the type of intelligence possessed by angels and men that make fallen angels unredeemable, and fallen men redeemable. Man can rightly claim ignorance as a factor in their sinning, but angels cannot.

“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Guess it’s one more thing I will have to disagree with Rome on. Thank God, it’s not relevant to salvation.

 

[tuopaolo]

RyanL:

Datum of Divine Revelation? I have to throw the flag on this one. I have never seen a biblical exegesis of her non-death attempted by anyone of serious theological significance, nor have I seen a consistant and persistant singular tradition in our common christian history as to believe that this is a quantifiable source of information from which can be derived a clear reference point (i.e., datum) from which to draw any significant theological weight. For that matter, neither has the Church, as she has failed to even imply either way - much less dogmatically define the absolute.

I think you’re confused about a lot of things. First whether or not something has been infallibly taught has little to do with whether or not something is a datum of divine revelation. There are things which are infallibly taught (such as canonizations of saints) which are not data of divine revelation (for instance it is not a datum of revelation that St Thomas Aquinas went to heaven). There are also plenty of things which are data of divine revelation which are not infallibly taught (for instance the Immaculate Conception prior to its definition was not infallibly taught yet it was still prior to its definition a datum of revelation – whether it is a datum of revelation does not change based on whether it is infallible taught).

Also divine revelation is not limited to Sacred Scripture but includes also the whole of Sacred Tradition.

And “datum” is just the singular form of “data”; it doesn’t mean “reference point” when it is being used here.

And finally the vast majority of theologians if not all of them acknowledge that the fact of whether or not Mary died is either a datum of divine revelation or something implicitly derived by means of reasoning from divine revelation. This is agreed upon by both the theologians who maintain the traditional view that Mary died and by the few theologians who propose that she didn’t. To consider yourself smarter than all of them is foolish IMO.

When Holy Mother Church tells me that this is of significant theological weight

Holy Mother Church teaches that we are to exercise the virtue of prudence. It is one of the four cardinal virtues. This is talked about a little in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The other cardinal virtues are justice, temperance and courage (sometimes called fortitude). Holy Mother Church teaches that we are to always apply the virtue of prudence to all things including this and also other things like in evaluating apparitions, financial matters, etc. It’s a cardinal virtue.

 

[tuopaolo]

gelsbern:

Guess it’s one more thing I will have to disagree with Rome on. Thank God, it’s not relevant to salvation.

Being Catholic is very relevant to your salvation. Outside the Church there is no salvation. Thus if you choose to remain outside the Church knowing that the Church was founded by Our Lord, there is no salvation for you.

 

[gelsbern]

I am part of the Universal Church established by Christ, I am not part of the Roman flavor of that church.

Read Dominus Iesus which there is a link below in my signature.

 

[RyanL]

tuopaolo:

I think you’re confused about a lot of things.

There are a number of things which I think, but some of them are better left unspoken…

tuopaolo:

First whether or not something has been infallibly taught has little to do with whether or not something is a datum of divine revelation. There are things which are infallibly taught (such as canonizations of saints) which are not data of divine revelation (for instance it is not a datum of revelation that St Thomas Aquinas went to heaven). There are also plenty of things which are data of divine revelation which are not infallibly taught (for instance the Immaculate Conception prior to its definition was not infallibly taught yet it was still prior to its definition a datum of revelation – whether it is a datum of revelation does not change based on whether it is infallible taught).

What you are saying is I have to believe things that Holy Mother Church has not told me I have to believe (although you won’t definitely say which way I have to believe), and you are trying to convince me with your own opinion of whether or not it’s worthy of belief. I will not accept your word on this. I would not expect you to blindly accept my word on a matter. If you bring back an official Church document (or a Doctor of the Church) who agrees with you about this, I’ll listen. If you can’t/won’t…don’t bother. I won’t be convinced.

tuopaolo:

Also divine revelation is not limited to Sacred Scripture but includes also the whole of Sacred Tradition.

I never asserted that it was any other way.

tuopaolo:

And “datum” is just the singular form of “data”; it doesn’t mean “reference point” when it is being used here.

That’s exactly my point - it’s not singular! There are differing beliefs, and neither you nor I are capable of discerning infallibly which is correct. When/if Holy Mother Church discerns this matter, I will listen and believe.

tuopaolo:

And finally the vast majority of theologians if not all of them acknowledge that the fact of whether or not Mary died is either a datum of divine revelation or something implicitly derived by means of reasoning from divine revelation. This is agreed upon by both the theologians who maintain the traditional view that Mary died and by the few theologians who propose that she didn’t. To consider yourself smarter than all of them is foolish IMO.

First - who? When? Where? What leads you to this conclusion? Again, you won’t convince me without factual data - I can hear opinions all day long, but until you bring facts/sources, I won’t believe you.

Second, will you PLEASE stop insisting that I am claiming to “know better” than the whole of Sacred Tradition?!? I have never so much as suggested this - quite the contrary! I have insisted that I will only listen to them!

tuopaolo:

Holy Mother Church teaches that we are to exercise the virtue of prudence… It’s a cardinal virtue.

I believe that’s exactly what I am exercising right now.
Go with God,
RyanL

 

[tuopaolo]

RyanL:

There are differing beliefs, and neither you nor I are capable of discerning infallibly which is correct.

That’s not what I am talking about. There are differing beliefs (though one is clearly more common) about whether or not Mary died. However there are no differing beliefs as to whether the fact of whether or not Mary died – whatever it may be – is based on directly or indirectly on divine revelation.

I am not communicating well and I apologize for that. Please try on your part to actually listen. I was not saying that you had to accept this or that view (though I did say you should give each view appropriate weight). I was saying rather that you ought to accept that whatever view is correct that it is a view based or implicitly derived by reasoning from the data of revelation. Let me try to illustrate the difference for you. Nestorians and orthodox Catholics disagreed with each other as to whether Christ was one divine person or two persons. But they were in full agreement with each other that whichever position is true it is a position that is based on divine revelation.

Just think about it. If theologians are making theological arguments for and against Mary dying then OBVIOUSLY those arguments are *based on divine revelation. *Perhaps you were unaware of the fact that there actually exist theologians who have discussed this. If so let me know and I will demonstrate this to you. As I’ve tried to point out this is not merely a historical issue about this or that historical tradition; it is a theological issue which grounds itself in divine revelation (otherwise it wouldn’t be theology!) This is such an obvious truth that I am baffled as to how you would fail to see it except that I may have communicated it poorly to you.

If you still don’t understand the point I am making then please just ask questions instead of going on a rant