Mary after the crucifixion

[MKBorders]

Good morning.
I am a new Catholic and though I received a good education in Catholic dogma in RCIA, I’m still struggling with the various traditions.

I often watch the EWTN channel and this morning as they do every Sunday at 7:30 est, a short program is run where the Holy Rosery is prayed over scenes from the holy land.
There is a priest who gives a very quick discription of the scenes along with graphics that name the various sites.

One set of locations which never cease to fascinate me is the home of Mary “across the street from the upper room. Where she lived and died”.

But wasn’t Mary up north with John and is there not a small cottage there venerated as her home?
Also the program includes the tomb of Mary (empty of course) apparently in Jerusalem.

Can anyone help me fill in the blanks here?

Thanks.

 

[Memaw]

Good morning.
I am a new Catholic and though I received a good education in Catholic dogma in RCIA, I’m still struggling with the various traditions.

I often watch the EWTN channel and this morning as they do every Sunday at 7:30 est, a short program is run where the Holy Rosery is prayed over scenes from the holy land.
There is a priest who gives a very quick discription of the scenes along with graphics that name the various sites.

One set of locations which never cease to fascinate me is the home of Mary “across the street from the upper room. Where she lived and died”.

But wasn’t Mary up north with John and is there not a small cottage there venerated as her home?
Also the program includes the tomb of Mary (empty of course) apparently in Jerusalem.

Can anyone help me fill in the blanks here?

Thanks.

Maybe she came back to her old home to spend her remaining days on earth. The Church has never taught that Mary died as we know death, there would be no reason for her to. She was assumed into Heaven, Body and Soul. I think it was such a precious moment between Her and GOD that we are not privileged to actually know just what took place. If God had wanted us to know for sure, He would have. God Bless, Memaw

 

[MKBorders]

I believe the Eastern tradition teaches that Mary died, was buried and then was taken whereas the Roman traditition teaches she was assumed at the moment of death ( or so I understand) . Yet on this Roman program the empty tomb is featured. The important point being it is empty, that Mary is not here.

Not trying to start trouble but the image of Mary’s tomb was on of my "ah -ha " moments that brought me from evangelical Protestant to Roman Catholic. I was taught from birth that Mary lay dead in her unknown grave awaiting the resurrection.
When I saw that the history of Mary after the day of Pentecost was indeed known I begain to doubt my spiritual education which opened my heart to further study, not to confirm my belief but to actually learn truth.

 

[pablope]

Good morning.
I am a new Catholic and though I received a good education in Catholic dogma in RCIA, I’m still struggling with the various traditions.

I often watch the EWTN channel and this morning as they do every Sunday at 7:30 est, a short program is run where the Holy Rosery is prayed over scenes from the holy land.
There is a priest who gives a very quick discription of the scenes along with graphics that name the various sites.

One set of locations which never cease to fascinate me is the home of Mary “across the street from the upper room. Where she lived and died”.

But wasn’t Mary up north with John and is there not a small cottage there venerated as her home?
Also the program includes the tomb of Mary (empty of course) apparently in Jerusalem.

Can anyone help me fill in the blanks here?

Thanks.

I would suggest the book by Catherine of Emmerich. But bear in mind, this is private revelation.

archive.org/details/TheLifeAndRevelationsOfAnneCatherineEmmerichComplete

or this one:
jesus-passion.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm

Look for the section Life of Mary after the Ascension

 

[MKBorders]

Continuing to dig on this subject I finally sent an E -mail to EWTN and asked for a clairification.
Received a response and share it with you now :

Dear Mark,

First, no Catholic doctrine states “that Mary lived and died with John up north and not in Jerusalem” or “that Mary was assumed bodily at the moment of death.” In the face of a lack of doctrine on a topic, Catholics have a certain freedom to hold varying opinions. This is particularly true of a point such as the location of Mary’s house.

Second, when we hold varying positions, we do well to back them up with as much evidence as we can find. So, for instance, we accept that St. John took care of the Blessed Mother from Jesus’ words on the cross in John 19. Yet we see St. John, along with St. Peter and the others, remaining in Jerusalem to help build the Church after Pentecost. If he remained in Jerusalem, as acts 2 through 8 indicate, then it is safe to assume that our Lady remained there with him, traditionally in a house near the Upper Room where the Christians regularly met.

Third, the Church never defined the moment at which our Lady was assumed into heaven, only that it happened. The oldest versions of the Assumption were written in the east, naturally, since that is where the events happened. They all agree that she died, the apostles were there and buried her, and then she was assumed into heaven. This would be in imitation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who also died, was buried in a cave tomb, and then rose from the dead. However, the Church has not decreed that this is the way it had to have been, so there is some freedom to believe that she was assumed immediately, as some Christians in the western world accept.

God bless and welcome to the catholic Church. The longer you are in it, and the longer you study the doctrines and pray over the truths they contain, the greater wisdom you will discover in life.

In Christ Jesus, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ