M
Memaw
Guest
Funny how NO ONE was there when it took place, but everyone knows what happened!! Only GOD knows!! Trust HIM! God Bless, Memaw
- Status
M
Memaw
Guest
Don’t be silly, I meant ask and Apologist about a bloody martyrdom !! God Bless, MemawHow would an apologist know what bible version you use?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Yes I know. We have had this conversation many times in the Eastern forum. I see the texts as glorifying her continuing life, incorruption, and singular translation, and her special soteriological role, which has nothing to do with her death - her * death* was not redemptive; she did not harrow Hades - but subsists in her giving birth to the Redeemer.
A
adrift
Guest
You still didn’t answer the question what translations do you use?
M
Memaw
Guest
I refer you to post 163 !!! God Bless. Memaw
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Oh, even though I believe in the doctrine of the Assumption, I do believe that Mary died prior like all humans die.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I agree with you, and of course that takes nothing away from the Blessed Virgin. She had a singular role to play in history, and she did it perfectly.
A
adrift
Guest
Do you think I misquoted you? I just wanted to know the translation because of your quote. So I gather there is no translation that has "Simeon said “A sword of SORROW would pierce her heart.” Darn it.
M
Memaw
Guest
So whats your beef? Seems your looking for mountains in molehills. Are we getting angry??? Patients is a virtue. Funny the way some react if you don’t “fall” into their traps. God Bless, MemawDo you think I misquoted you? I just wanted to know the translation because of your quote. So I gather there is no translation that has "Simeon said “A sword of SORROW would pierce her heart.” Darn it.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Sorry, I didn’t mean that they doubted the Truth. What I meant was they expressed a doubt about what was generally received at that time as the truth. Because, as St. Epiphanius has said, we don’t know for certain exactly what happened, based on Scripture.
However, since the earliest times, the received tradition has been lent continuing support from popes and saints, making it more than just pious speculation at this time. In my opinion, it has risen to the level of Church teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Also I think there was definitely consensus on the teaching of her death, but there were the odd exceptions to the rule nevertheless. It wasn’t outside the bounds of theological speculation (even so today.)
One thing no one seems to consider:
If the Virgin Mary died, was raised from the dead and was Assumed into Heaven, the way we have received the tradition, then the ONLY major difficulty appears to be whether her sinlessness and holiness would rule out this possibility. However, even the theologians that dispute the death of the Virgin Mary, do not believe this is an actual impediment to her death. That her FREELY accepting death to be in Union with her Son, would make this possible.
Now what if she never died? What kind of scenario does that leave us with? What kind of difficulties?
Yes, it would be fitting because of her Immaculate Conception and life of perfect holiness. But what about the Church, the Apostles, St. John, and whether there were witnesses to any part of her going directly from life to heaven?
If there were NO witnesses, then the Church, the Apostles and St. John would have suddenly found Our Blessed Lady to be MISSING! How would they KNOW what happened to her? This would likely be VERY stressful to the Apostles, St. John and the early Church. There would have been NO explanation, no way of knowing. This was also a time of PERSECUTION of the church, making it all the more troublesome.
Does that scenario make sense? I don’t believe it does.
What if there WERE witnesses? Suppose St. John the Apostle, or the Apostles or the Church WAS a witness to this event? Then in this case we have witnesses that never fulfilled their mission of witnessing! Why did they keep such a thing secret? What sort of difficult situations of lying would be required of them in order to keep such a secret? And for what purpose? IOW, if God wanted them as witnesses, than why have them NOT act as witnesses? Even in the case of the Holy Transfiguration, Jesus asks Peter James and John to withhold their experience until After His death and Resurrection, a mere week or two from when it happened. IOW, they DID witness to the event that they witnessed.
Does that scenario make sense? I don’t think so.
St. Pope John Paul II makes that very point. He wonders why, if Our Lady had never died or just disappeared NOTHING extraordinary was ever said or found in ancient History. Yet if she HAD died, then NOTHING unusual would have appeared to have happened, and events as we have been taught by ancient tradition would all make sense.
Now some can imagine either of the two scenarios without difficulty, I am sure. But the question is, can the Theologians and our understanding of God and how he works with us, reconcile either of those two scenarios?
A
adrift
Guest
What I wrote is what I meant. Why would you think I was angry? This passage has bothered me your quote would have solved it. Unfortunately it is not translated that way. I am sorry you thought it was a trap. you are wrong on that assumption. You may not see it as Mary being martyred but that is exactly the way it has read to me.
B
babochka
Guest
I agree with your summary of the article. I also found it interesting to learn that this disagreement particularly became in issue with the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception dogma. That makes sense in light of the fact that the scholastics tied the issues of Mary’s death to their rejection of the Immaculate Conception.I too appreciate this!
I have read it, and I have to say it does give a very balanced view of the whole controversy.
First: It is quite a controversy within today’s theological circles. Something I was not aware of.
Second: There ARE a couple of very early statements that the Virgin Mary may never have died. Although even those are relatively inconclusive.
Third: The Eastern Church is where the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary matured much sooner than in the West. In fact we owe MUCH to the Eastern Church with regard to this doctrine even today.
Fourth: The article is inconclusive.
How that affects my understanding is:
First: There is a reasonable doubt about the death of the Virgin Mary in the minds of some knowledgable theologians.
Second: I feel that the whole co-redemptrix role of Mary (which is clearly stated in the article and alluded to in Munificentissimus Deus) adds yet more evidence (at least in my mind) to the truth of the death of the Virgin Mary.
I feel that there is still a lot more that is not being considered with respect to the death of the Virgin Mary, (as all of the arguments are based on OFFICIAL Church teaching, Liturgy, and writings of the Fathers and other Saints.) And maybe those further considerations are still being argued as well for all I know.
Definitely food for thought.
Today was the leave-taking of the Feast of the Dormition. As we sang these words, “The limits of nature are overcome in you, O pure Virgin, for birth giving remains virginal and death is the prelude to life; a virgin after childbearing and alive after death! You ever save your inheritance, O Theotokos.”, I thought of this thread and prayed for each of you. Most people on this forum seem to be the type that enjoy getting into the nitty-gritty, the details and, while searching for the truth, still very much like to be right.
May we, as we explore these questions and share our thoughts with one another, always remain kind, respectful and generous with charity. Until this time next year, when I’m sure this refrain will repeat itself…
A
adrift
Guest
Thank You
- Status