Mark Brumley's Answer about Mary's Death

[Gorgias]

Last night on Catholic Answers Live, Mark Brumley fielded a question from a man who is in the process of entering the Church through RCIA. He asked (I’m paraphrasing from memory), “if Genesis tells us that through sin, death entered the world… and if Mary was preserved from Original Sin, then why did she die? Shouldn’t she have been exempt from death?”

Mark took the answer in a direction that had me scratching my head. It seemed to be unsatisfying to the caller, as well. I’m going to describe (my recollection of) his answer, and then share with you how I think I would’ve answered the question. Please shoot holes in my answer if you think I’m getting it wrong.

Mark mentioned that Mary shared in Christ’s ministry so fully, that she even had a share in His death. Therefore, her death was – in a certain sense – a participation in Christ’s death.

I would’ve gone in a completely different direction. First off, I wouldn’t have conceded that the ‘death’ talked about in Genesis is “physical death”. Rather, the ‘death’ that entered the world at the “sin of Adam” is spiritual death – that is, the loss of eternal life with God.

Second, I would’ve pointed out that the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were given preternatural gifts by God: integrity, immortality, and infused knowledge. When they sinned, they lost these gifts. The Church teaches that any potential immortality that our first human parents had was conditional, and was lost. In fact, the Church teaches that the effects of original sin are “a deprivation of original holiness and justice” (see CCC #405)… but not that loss of immortality is part of ‘original sin.’

In other words, we lost immortality, but only inasmuch as we lost preternatural gifts. The effects of original sin are related to the preternatural gifts, but aren’t identical to them.

With that in mind, we turn to Mary. She was immaculately conceived – that is, she was never affected by original sin. Yet, the Church doesn’t teach that she received all the preternatural gifts… right? (This is the sticking point: I can’t find any magisterial source that asserts that she did.) Sure, she was sinless, but that doesn’t mean that she was physically immortal.

So, we would say that her Immaculate Conception saved her from the spiritual death that humans found themselves subject to… but we wouldn’t say that this implies that she was supposed to be physically immortal.

So… what do you think? Does this reasoning hold up? Is there a magisterial source that says that Mary received the preternatual gifts?

Thanks!
G.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

I heard part of thar answer too. I listen via EWTN via Sirius and that feed isn’t the best.

I tend to agree that Marks answer went in a different direction than I’ve heard before.

I’ve thought, maybe incorrectly, that Mary was assumed into heaven at the end of her life, and we are free to interpret whether that meant death or not.

Isn’t that a talking point between Eastern and Western rite Catholics?

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve thought, maybe incorrectly, that Mary was assumed into heaven at the end of her life, and we are free to interpret whether that meant death or not.

Right. There’s no doctrinal definition. In the East, they speak of the “dormition” (that is, the “falling asleep”). In the West, there is a tradition that she died but was immediately assumed into heaven, body and soul.

Yet, there is no doctrinal assertion that one or the other categorically happened.

 

[fhansen]

Last night on Catholic Answers Live, Mark Brumley fielded a question from a man who is in the process of entering the Church through RCIA. He asked (I’m paraphrasing from memory), “if Genesis tells us that through sin, death entered the world… and if Mary was preserved from Original Sin, then why did she die? Shouldn’t she have been exempt from death?”

Mark took the answer in a direction that had me scratching my head. It seemed to be unsatisfying to the caller, as well. I’m going to describe (my recollection of) his answer, and then share with you how I think I would’ve answered the question. Please shoot holes in my answer if you think I’m getting it wrong.

Mark mentioned that Mary shared in Christ’s ministry so fully, that she even had a share in His death. Therefore, her death was – in a certain sense – a participation in Christ’s death.

I would’ve gone in a completely different direction. First off, I wouldn’t have conceded that the ‘death’ talked about in Genesis is “physical death”. Rather, the ‘death’ that entered the world at the “sin of Adam” is spiritual death – that is, the loss of eternal life with God.

Second, I would’ve pointed out that the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were given preternatural gifts by God: integrity, immortality, and infused knowledge. When they sinned, they lost these gifts. The Church teaches that any potential immortality that our first human parents had was conditional, and was lost. In fact, the Church teaches that the effects of original sin are “a deprivation of original holiness and justice” (see CCC #405)… but not that loss of immortality is part of ‘original sin.’

In other words, we lost immortality, but only inasmuch as we lost preternatural gifts. The effects of original sin are related to the preternatural gifts, but aren’t identical to them.

With that in mind, we turn to Mary. She was immaculately conceived – that is, she was never affected by original sin. Yet, the Church doesn’t teach that she received all the preternatural gifts… right? (This is the sticking point: I can’t find any magisterial source that asserts that she did.) Sure, she was sinless, but that doesn’t mean that she was physically immortal.

So, we would say that her Immaculate Conception saved her from the spiritual death that humans found themselves subject to… but we wouldn’t say that this implies that she was supposed to be physically immortal.

So… what do you think? Does this reasoning hold up? Is there a magisterial source that says that Mary received the preternatual gifts?

Thanks!
G.

We are restored to the same immaculate state at Baptism, yet still suffering the loss of preternatural gifts including immortality.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

This always confused me, could you elaborate a bit ?
From what I know, I thought the Church teaches that Mary was asummed into heaven before her death and therefore never died in the first place,just like Elijah and its also the reason you can’t find her grave today.
So I never saw Mary’s death being a problem.
Am I getting something wrong or ?

 

[Gorgias]

We are restored to the same immaculate state at Baptism, yet still suffering the loss of preternatural gifts including immortality

No we’re not! Although baptized, we still suffer from concupiscence, and have diminished wills and darkened intellects…

 

[Gorgias]

From what I know, I thought the Church teaches that Mary was asummed into heaven before her death

Assumed into heaven? Yes.

Before her death? Not part of the doctrinal teaching.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

We are restored to the same immaculate state at Baptism, yet still suffering the loss of preternatural gifts including immortality

No we’re not! Although baptized, we still suffer from concupiscence, and have diminished wills and darkened intellects…

We, at Baptism, are cleansed, made free, from Original Sin as Mary was at birth. And, like Mary, we still suffer the loss of the preternatural gifts. You’re right, I believe, about concupiscence however; she was also free from it. But even tho preserved from OS, she, as with her Son, was not free from suffering and death. And the question that the OP is concerned with is why wouldn’t preservation from OS mean that she didn’t die. My response was that neither she nor ourselves are free from death even when freed from OS.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This topic routinely reappears here. Mark’s explanation is completely in accord with Church Teaching, specifically the last few popes. It has been reiterated over and over again, that Mary did in fact die, and this has always been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It wasn’t until relatively recently that theologians have introduced some doubts because of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the wording of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. However, for Catholics in the pews, there should be no doubt, if ancient, continuous teaching of the Church can be believed. There is NO doubt among Eastern Catholics that the Virgin Mary did in fact die. They know, without any doubt, that the Dormition of Mary refers to her death, not literally sleep.

One important point that could also be made, is that death for the Virgin Mary, would not be like ours. We are sinners, with attachments to this world, and regrets. That is what causes the sting of death. For the Virgin Mary, who was sinless, and completely detached from this world, death would have been a welcome portal into heavenly bliss.

 

[Gorgias]

It has been reiterated over and over again, that Mary did in fact die, and this has always been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Fine, but that wasn’t the question. The question is why she died, given her Immaculate Conception.

No answer? Or, are you suggesting that we simply tell RCIA participants, “yeah, she died. Just accept it. Next question?”…?

 

[Cruciferi]

Mary was assumed into Heaven body and soul. I personally believe in the dormition theory. Elijah however, was translated back to Paradise (Eden) and will come back during the reign of the Antichrist along with Enoch to minister to the nations.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Fine, but that wasn’t the question. The question is why she died, given her Immaculate Conception.

No answer? Or, are you suggesting that we simply tell RCIA participants, “yeah, she died. Just accept it. Next question?”…?

And that question WAS answered, although, without giving much satisfaction to the caller apparently.

The reason the caller may have been unsatisfied can be answered somewhat, I think.

First of all, the Immaculate Conception was ONLY made possible by the anticipation of the Redemption of Jesus Christ to ALL mankind, including the Blessed Virgin. IOW, it is important to keep in mind that the Virgin Mary NEEDED redemption as much as ALL the rest of us. When we contemplate the Sacred Mystery of the Immaculate Conception, we remember that it was for the sake of JESUS that the most Holy Incarnation have an Immaculate Tabernacle (as was forshadowed in the OT) Secondly the Inscrutable Will of God, ordained that the Virgin Mary would be mysteriously preserved Even in her Conception, from all taint of sin, meaning Original Sin. Therefore, the Virgin Mary, as a human, just like us, except in sin, because of her exalted mission, was graced with the Immaculate Conception. But AS A HUMAN, she was still a daughter of Adam & Eve, and therefore subject to death.

These are not necessarily categorical answers, but rather meditations on a Divine Mystery. In the end, Mary, by the Grace of God, and her own merit, was free from the taint of sin, and PERHAPS, there WAS a prerogative that she not taste death, (but that would be PURE speculation.) We know that the Virgin Mary was the MOST perfect Disciple of Jesus, and completely conformed her own will to the Will of God. Therefore, it may have been the will of God that she die, as did her Perfect Son, AND, all the rest of humanity. Her death would have been a source of yet more grace and merit to glory of the Virgin Mary.

Lastly, since this is an ancient and continuous teaching and tradition of the Church (that she died) that alone SHOULD be sufficient to answer the caller. After all, without that, what would we have?

 

[Gorgias]

And that question WAS answered, although, without giving much satisfaction to the caller apparently.

Except that… it wasn’t.

The caller’s question presumed that Mary’s Immaculate Conception meant that she was free from physical death, and Brumley implicitly confirmed the caller’s presumption. Problem is… it’s not true. The death we fell subject to at the fall of man is a spiritual death.

So, it seems to me that the caller’s question wasn’t answered – at least, not in a way that’s helpful in the understanding of the faith for someone new to it.

IOW, it is important to keep in mind that the Virgin Mary NEEDED redemption as much as ALL the rest of us.

True. But that wasn’t his question…

Mary would be mysteriously preserved Even in her Conception, from all taint of sin, meaning Original Sin. Therefore, the Virgin Mary, as a human, just like us, except in sin, because of her exalted mission, was graced with the Immaculate Conception. But AS A HUMAN, she was still a daughter of Adam & Eve, and therefore subject to death.

Right. And that, I’d assert, should have been his answer, and not “she shared fully in Christ’s mission”.

and PERHAPS, there WAS a prerogative that she not taste death, (but that would be PURE speculation.)

And that’s what I’m looking for – anything magisterial that either asserts it or leads us to believe it’s true. 'Cause, honestly, I don’t know of any magisterial statement that makes that claim.

Lastly, since this is an ancient and continuous teaching and tradition of the Church (that she died) that alone SHOULD be sufficient to answer the caller. After all, without that, what would we have?

Doctrine.

That isn’t the doctrine of the Church. For someone new to the faith, the starting point should be what the Church actually teaches, doctrinally… not what some have thought, regardless of the piety of the thought.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Except that… it wasn’t.

The caller’s question presumed that Mary’s Immaculate Conception meant that she was free from physical death, and Brumley implicitly confirmed the caller’s presumption. Problem is… it’s not true. The death we fell subject to at the fall of man is a spiritual death.

It is an error to suppose that the death talked about in Genesis (and in St. Paul’s Epistles) is ONLY a spiritual death. It isn’t. It’s both a physical death AND a spiritual death. (See fhansen’s reply)

 

[Gorgias]

It is an error to suppose that the death talked about in Genesis (and in St. Paul’s Epistles) is ONLY a spiritual death. It isn’t.

Inasmuch as the fall of man caused the loss of preternatural gifts, including ‘immortality’, sure.

However, especially considering Paul’s commentary in Romans, we conclude that spiritual death is precisely what he’s talking about:
Romans 5:12:

Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world,h and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned

If we’re talking about physical death, then your assertion means that animals die physically because they all sin.

Think about that for just a second. It just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

No, Paul must be talking about humans, for only we are capable of sin. And, if sin is the cause of death, then it can’t be the cause of physical death, since animals suffer physical death, too. However, animals don’t have eternal souls, so they don’t suffer spiritual death. We can, though, and so we conclude that Paul must be talking about death that is spiritual, not physical.

 

[stuartbrianhenlis]

Hi,

Your questions and got me curious about this matter, so I did a little digging on my own and found Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus. From what I understand from it is that Mary did die (a natural death I assume) and that her body was “uncorrupted” when she was assumed into heaven. There’s a lot of material to go through, but I thought you might be interested in this.

Stuart

 

[AmbroseSJ]

If we’re talking about physical death, then your assertion means that animals die physically because they all sin.

Think about that for just a second. It just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Yes, I agree. It doesn’t hold up to your interpretation that is.
St. Paul says “inasmuch as all sinned” clearly refers to mankind, not animals, which you also see

Man was created with a soul and a body, unlike the animals. Therefore death was always natural to them. You are intent on equating mankind with the animals, which is not right.

And, if sin is the cause of death, then it can’t be the cause of physical death, since animals suffer physical death, too.

Your logic is faulty. Just because sin is the cause of death in mankind, does not mean, or even logically imply that because animals suffer death and because they are incapable of sin, therefore death in the world cannot be due to sin. At least that is not what St. Paul is saying or implying.

I agree that St. Paul is talking about spiritual death, but physical death too, is the obvious as well as the literal meaning of his words.

The entire Eastern Church believes that physical death IS the penalty of the Sin of Adam and Eve.

 

[Gorgias]

Man was created with a soul and a body, unlike the animals. Therefore death was always natural to them. You are intent on equating mankind with the animals, which is not right.

Physical death was always natural for humans, too. That’s why the Church teaches that immortality was a preternatural gift. It’s not part of our physical nature; rather, it was something that was freely given to our first parents (and then lost when they sinned).

Your logic is faulty. Just because sin is the cause of death in mankind, does not mean, or even logically imply that because animals suffer death and because they are incapable of sin, therefore death in the world cannot be due to sin. At least that is not what St. Paul is saying or implying.

Help me see it, then. I think I’m making a logical case. Just asserting I’m wrong, without a logical argument, doesn’t help much.

Paul’s case is:

• sin entered the world
• with sin, death
• all die, inasmuch as all sin

To believe your take on it, I’d have to believe that God created humanity with a human nature that included physical immortality. The Church doesn’t teach that. I’d also have to believe that God created animals differently than He created humans. (That’s true in terms of the imago dei, but this is a spiritual, not physical reality.) The story of creation goes to pains to point out that we’re physically made up of the stuff of the world. That is, it’s telling us of our common physical nature with the creations of the world. It’s our soul that makes us different. And, it’s the death of the soul – in damnation – that we ‘gain’ with sin.

So… please show me (not just tell me) that I’m wrong.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Physical death was always natural for humans, too. That’s why the Church teaches that immortality was a preternatural gift. It’s not part of our physical nature; rather, it was something that was freely given to our first parents (and then lost when they sinned).

You are in agreement with me then, as you say above. The physical death of mankind is the wages of sin.

 

[Gorgias]

You are in agreement with me then, as you say above. The physical death of mankind is the wages of sin.

Cute… but nonresponsive. Should I take that as an admission that you can not defend your position against mine?