Mary's Assumption

[GaryTaylor]

So Blue aside from the various and numerous apocryphal what do we have? That you would like to believe one specific narrative and somehow you conclude the Pope agrees with you on this one specific narrative on how all this transpired., and further then you would conclude this IS the tradition he is teaching.

Yes Blue we disagree.

I would like to believe the Pope also, in fact I do. But what you think he is saying is not what I think he is saying. And you seem to think your right about all this by “consensus”. Yes I disagree there also if we are on agreement with my above statement.

Hey Blue they “don’t know” and thats why its a mystery. I “don’t know” either and agree its a mystery unknown thus defined out of all this, she was assumed body and soul. Here death isn’t defined, how could it be without divine revelation and more facts.

All that said, as I said I can’t see any theological reasoning on why she could not have been assumed alive? So what do you think in relation to [diversity of opinion in late antiquity regarding the eschatological significance of Paradise.] Which I think is the real conversation in relation to the inspired word of God and his perfect law. That along with the resurrection of the quick and the dead. Logically speaking I see no reason why she could not have been assumed alive. In fact my point becomes very simple. Since it is a Dogma of the general resurrection and for sure the alive and quickened will be assumed body and soul and alive thus Genesis to the end with consistency of body and soul intact and alive. I see no reason why this would not be most fitting for the Mother of the Lord. Now if you just answer that we would be making progress.

 

[adrift]

It was Memaw who first used the words “in pieces”.
She was clearly referring to my phrase that “Mary’s soul was separated from her body” (ie not “intact”).

End of story.

She did indeed use the phrase in the context that Mary went to heaven body and soul. It seems you both talk past each other.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, I feel the same about your conjecture and speculation. But in charity I don’t think this was the way to proceed and still don’t.

Huh, who for example? You and who? This seems to be another stretch of the imagination like the various and multiple narratives with no facts?

Right she could have been assumed ALIVE you don’t know and what we can conclude is you have not a single fact, nothing.to support your narrative.

Nothing inspired at all. There is Apocrypha and with various narratives including she was ALIVE! What truth, your speculation, there are no facts period. In fact the Biblical text is silent

The apostles may have been there when she was “Assumed Alive and intact” too. How about we conclude that? But the bottom line is there are “NO FACTS” and both stories exist.

I don’t see anything new or of significance here but repeating addressed points.

There is no required belief Mary died, there are no facts where she died, when she died and how she died… And yes the apostles were there when she was assumed alive and intact.

PS I have no idea what your point is with corrupt or not corrupt its not proof of anything either way . Which is why its a secondary point. I don’t know how much clearer I can be for you.

Gary you’ve lost me mate.
Memaw appears to state categorically that we know for certain the apostles were not there.
I disagree… there is no certainty either way on this point.
One either sees this by the light of first principles or one doesn’t.

Similarly you do not understand the small point I made about incorruption. That’s fine, others seem to get it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Blue,

there is no certainty either way on this point.

Nor on where, when or how, nothing.

So I only have two questions, the first concerning “tradition” and what you think this is in regards to the Church and her teaching on the Assumption and Dormition?

And here…

All that said, as I said I can’t see any theological reasoning on why she could not have been assumed alive? So what do you think in relation to [diversity of opinion in late antiquity regarding the eschatological significance of Paradise.] Which I think is the real conversation in relation to the inspired word of God and his perfect law. That along with the resurrection of the quick and the dead. Logically speaking I see no reason why she could not have been assumed alive. In fact my point becomes very simple. Since it is a Dogma of the general resurrection and for sure the alive and quickened will be assumed body and soul and alive thus Genesis to the end with consistency of body and soul intact and alive. I see no reason why this would not be most fitting for the Mother of the Lord. Now if you just answer that we would be making progress.

I haven’t heard this reason why Mary couldn’t be assumed alive and intact? There “may” be a good reason but it eludes me.

 

[Vico]

I think you may still have missed Memaw’s mistaken point.

She believes the Dogma asserts infallibly, with certainty, absolutely, always that Mary was NOT in pieces at any time before her Assumption.

It does not.
For the Dogma to assert this would be for it to assert that Mary did not die.
We all agree that the Dogma leaves that question open don’t we?

Therefore Mary could have been “in pieces” immediately before her arrival in heaven.
Memaw denies this possibility totally.

Somehow Memaw doesn’t understand that “to be in pieces” (ie separation of body and soul) is the definition of death. Therefore the Dogma cannot deny this possibility that Mary was “in pieces” immediately before her arrival in heaven where she was then perfectly restored to immortal, full and glorious bodily life.

Memaw posted clearly, that we do not know with certainty about her death and that what is intended is body and soul not in pieces at the time of the assumption, rather than at any time.

• Post # 162: Because they keep insisting she died and I keep saying we do not know for sure. We don’t even know when her earthly time was over.
• Post # 197: She was taken Body and Soul, both together, (intact) to Heaven. NO WHERE does the Church teach that Mary went to Heaven in pieces.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

*]Post #197 She was taken Body and Soul, both together, (intact) to Heaven. NO WHERE does the Church teach that Mary went to Heaven in pieces.

Both of Memaw’s above statements are manifestly mistaken.

1. We do not know with certainty how Mary’s body and soul got to heaven. Tradition clearly favours she left earth in pieces, NOT INTACT, as iconography clearly shows.
2. The Church teaches in Municentissimus Deus thar Mary died, this means body and soul were not intact, ie in pieces. It’s not yet infallibly declared, but being in an Encyclical it’s clearly taught by the Church… as it is by enduring early tradition from earliest times as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Still think we are seeing Tradition and tradition differently thus the overall teaching.

1. We do not know with certainty how Mary’s body and soul got to heaven. Tradition clearly favours she left earth in pieces, NOT INTACT, as iconography clearly shows.

1. All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing his lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought him forth, nursed him with her milk, held him in her arms, and clasped him to her breast, as being apart from him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.

1. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,(44) would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(45) Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: “When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.”

Tradition is silent on Marys death there are traditions which elaborate on this, that is not the Tradition. Nor has death in the case of Mary ever been defined. What the Tradition refers to is the deposit of faith here; “the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church.” “All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation.”

1. The Church teaches in Municentissimus Deus thar Mary died, this means body and soul were not intact, ie in pieces. It’s not yet infallibly declared, but being in an Encyclical it’s clearly taught by the Church… as it is by enduring early tradition from earliest times as well.

This is relating to various traditions not Tradition. And the earliest Tradition …

"We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,(44) would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(45) Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: “When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.”

Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

1. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

Thus the general resurrection where body and soul of the quickened are raised together and alive. What should we say of death for them. Death was swallowed up in life?

These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven is contained in “the deposit of Christian faith” entrusted to the Church.

Which is…

a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

cont…

 

[GaryTaylor]

the Vatican Council asserts, “all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.”

thus

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

The Rosary is a tradition, eating polish food for Christmas is a tradition, believing a specific teaching based on apocryphal is a tradition.

Nor can we pass over in silence the fact that in the Rosary of Mary, the recitation of which this Apostolic See so urgently recommends, there is one mystery proposed for pious meditation which, as all know, deals with the Blessed Virgin’s Assumption into heaven.

The Tradition is the deposit of faith both scripture which is silent and the oral tradition from the apostles which is passed down which is also silent. They testify and elaborate on the pre-post fall, Christ resurrection and the general resurrection and in consideration of Mary reminding us Mary was human not immortal on earth. The dogma is line with these teachings only without addition of Rosary, Polish food or some other tradition.

All that said, as I said I can’t see any theological reasoning on why she could not have been assumed alive? So what do you think in relation to [diversity of opinion in late antiquity regarding the eschatological significance of Paradise.] Which I think is the real conversation in relation to the inspired word of God and his perfect law. That along with the resurrection of the quick and the dead. Logically speaking I see no reason why she could not have been assumed alive. In fact my point becomes very simple. Since it is a Dogma of the general resurrection and for sure the alive and quickened will be assumed body and soul and alive thus Genesis to the end with consistency of body and soul intact and alive. I see no reason why this would not be most fitting for the Mother of the Lord. Now if you just answer that we would be making progress.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just as the Protoevangelium of James enamated from a desire of the faithful for information about Marys life before the Annunciation so too there was a desire to be informed about her life after Christs ascension and about her final fate.

By the fifth century at the latest apocryphal accounts of Marys death and assumption were circulating with widely different descriptions of the circumstances surrounding Marys departure from the world. [Mary Clayton The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England-page 14 Cambridge Press]

The ancient Dormition and Assumption traditions are a collection of over sixty different narratives, preserved in nine ancient languages. [Ancient Tradtions of the Virgin Marys Dormition and Assumption Stephan Shoemaker Oxford early chirstian studies]

 

[GaryTaylor]

BTW, I don’t want to critique anyones tradition or belief. Overall in speaking I thinks its all beautiful, be it Memaw or Blue or Rinnie of Vico etc. And from a secular point of view with death I have no issue with a Jim Morrison quote that no one here gets out alive which “appears” to be true… From my morbid secular view I’m with Jim in that casual quick view. But not from my Christian mind, we are talking something very different from a spiritual orthodox Christian view which they call reality-Gods Kingdom and me too. Perhaps its the general resurrection teaching I am misunderstanding where Jesus Christ comes to judge the quick and the dead according to the Good News. In that good news contrary to Jim Morrison the Quickened “DO” get out alive and with body and soul and immediately and are judged immediately by Christ and His Saints and rightfully so? Amen?

I can’t see any confusion in that thinking, but the Tradition-tradition thinking and perhaps terribly explained above appears to be much confusion. I mean don’t you agree?

 

[Vico]

Both of Memaw’s above statements are manifestly mistaken.

1. We do not know with certainty how Mary’s body and soul got to heaven. Tradition clearly favours she left earth in pieces, NOT INTACT, as iconography clearly shows.
2. The Church teaches in Municentissimus Deus thar Mary died, this means body and soul were not intact, ie in pieces. It’s not yet infallibly declared, but being in an Encyclical it’s clearly taught by the Church… as it is by enduring early tradition from earliest times as well.

For #1: Intact is what is expressed in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, as it is stated as taking up to heaven body and soul occurs after “having overcome death” in item 40 and in the definition “having completed the course of her earthly life”
40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,[47] immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.[48]

Dogmatic definition:“that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
For # 2: It is not required to believe that she died.

That is sufficient to show that Memaw is correct.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

For #1: Intact is what is expressed in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, as it is stated as taking up to heaven body and soul occurs after “having overcome death” in item 40 and in the definition “having completed the course of her earthly life”
40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,[47] immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.[48]

Dogmatic definition:“that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
For # 2: It is not required to believe that she died.

That is sufficient to show that Memaw is correct.

Nothing here provides the certainty with which Memaw speaks.

• Memaw is certain Mary was intact at all times before arrival in heaven.
• Memaw is certain the Church has never taught she died.
• Memaw is certain no Apostles were present at the completion of her earthly life.

All three propositions are at odds with actual Church Teaching.
The Church holds no such certainty on points 1 and 3.

The 2nd proposition is mistaken because the Church defintely does have a non infallible teaching that Mary died.
Vico do you deny that the Pope’s clear assertions in MD of Mary’s death are not a Church teaching? If so do you also deny the teaching in HV because it is also not dogmatically defined?

Do you accept Jesus overcame death?
Do you accept that Jesus entered heaven intact after completing the course of his earthly life?
Do you accept he died along with the above as well?
So why assert these things of Mary to somehow confirm Memaw’s certainties are well placed when they are not .

 

[Vico]

…

You posted “The 2nd proposition is mistaken because the Church definitely does have a non infallible teaching that Mary died.”

Answer: Yes, however it is not required that one believe that she died. Also, even if we were, we know that there is no certain teaching on how long after the body ceases to function that the soul leaves the body. The word after has a definition “at the close of” and the phrases used in the English translation of M.D. are “having completed” (dogma) and “having overcome death” (item 40). So it cannot even be said certainly that soul and body were parted before assumption, even if her body ceased to function. (Cessation of function is the common meaning of death of the body.) I posted not about Memaw’s personal opinion but only about what the dogma requires to believe and what is allowable to believe, as stated by Memaw. Memaw states, for the dogmatic belief, that intact refers to the time she was assumed, not about other times before that. Really it was a reference not to how but when the assumption occured.

Reference to earlier propositions:

Both of Memaw’s above statements are manifestly mistaken. 1. We do not know with certainty how Mary’s body and soul got to heaven. Tradition clearly favours she left earth in pieces, NOT INTACT, as iconography clearly shows.
2. The Church teaches in Municentissimus Deus thar Mary died, this means body and soul were not intact, ie in pieces. It’s not yet infallibly declared, but being in an Encyclical it’s clearly taught by the Church… as it is by enduring early tradition from earliest times as well.

 

[Vico]

…

If you look into what Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma for this:Mary suffered a temporal death.
you read that it is sententia communior. He also gives that definition:“5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thats what I’m thinking…

If you look into what Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma for this:

Do you accept Jesus overcame death?
Do you accept that Jesus entered heaven intact after completing the course of his earthly life?
Do you accept he died along with the above as well?

Blue, these are dogmas and creed. If you do not accept them it would be odd one would recite the creed at least weekly at mass. This is different as its also dogma body and soul for sure were separated. “He descended then on the third day ascended” This is not absolutely true for all mankind as the general judgement indicates

Christ, through His Passion and Death, merited reward from God. (De fide.)

Christ merited for Himself the condition of exaltation (Resurrection, Transfiguration of the body, Ascension into Heaven). (Sent. certa.)

Christ merited all supernatural graces received by fallen mankind. (Sent. certa.)

After His Death, Christ’s soul, which was separated from His Body, descended into the underworld. (De fide.)

The underworld is the place of detention for the souls of the just of the pre-Christian era, the so-called vestibule of hell (limbus Patrum).

On the third day after His Death Christ rose gloriously from the dead. (De fide.)

Christ ascended Body and Soul into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. (De fide.)

The difference being is no-one is descending into the underworld for the souls of the just. The intention of the resurrection of Christ isn’t to indicate a separation of soul and body as that was never intended to happen. Nor is the third day indicative of mankind but the Lord. What becomes indicative of mankind is …

Christ rose gloriously from the dead. (De fide.)

Christ ascended Body and Soul into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. (De fide.)

So Mary is as mentioned …

Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)

Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)

In the present order of salvation death is a punishment for sin. (De fide.)

All human beings subject to original sin are subject to the law of death. (De fide.) D789

With death the possibility of merit or demerit or conversion ceases. (Sent. certa.)

The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven. (De fide.)

At the end of the world Christ will come again in glory to pronounce judgment. (De fide.)

The time of Jesus’ second coming is unknown to men. (Sent. certa.)

All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies. (De fide.)

[this is everyone alive and dead]

The bodies of the just will be re-modeled and transfigured to the pattern of the risen Christ. (Sent. certa.)

Christ, on His second coming, will judge all men. (De fide. )

The present world will be destroyed on the Last Day. (Sent. certa.)

The present world will be restored on the Last Day. (Sent. certa.)

So when we are talking what may have happened its clear she may have been assumed immediately with body and soul. The translation from death to life could well have happened immediately. Mary didn’t have to die which is why the language is she would have desired to die. she didn’t have to be subject to the grave.

The connection of Mary 3-days in the grave is indicative of Christ but we are talking completely different reasoning. Mary wasn’t descending to the underworld to save the just, she was being saved herself. And when the just were saved they didn’t wait three-days they were saved immediately

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You posted “The 2nd proposition is mistaken because the Church definitely does have a non infallible teaching that Mary died.”

Answer: Yes, however it is not required that one believe that she died. Also, even if we were, we know that there is no certain teaching on how long after the body ceases to function that the soul leaves the body. The word after has a definition “at the close of” and the phrases used in the English translation of M.D. are “having completed” (dogma) and “having overcome death” (item 40). So it cannot even be said certainly that soul and body were parted before assumption, even if her body ceased to function. (Cessation of function is the common meaning of death of the body.) I posted not about Memaw’s personal opinion but only about what the dogma requires to believe and what is allowable to believe, as stated by Memaw. Memaw states, for the dogmatic belief, that intact refers to the time she was assumed, not about other times before that. Really it was a reference not to how but when the assumption occured.

Reference to earlier propositions:

You are entitled to your opinion of what she said… but I believe you are mistaken for the reasons repeatedly provided below.
If you are not posting about Memaw’s personal opinions I don’t understand why you address me when I observe Catholic inconsistencies in the normal meaning of her stated personal views .

Glad we finally agree that the Church does have a teaching that Mary died.
Of course one is free to believe Mary did not die. I do not understand why you feel the need to tell me that. I have said that myself every time I assert this teaching… that is what “non infallibly defined” means and allows.

Of course there is no Church teaching that Mary did not die. This is presently only an allowed theological opinion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thats what I’m thinking…

Blue, these are dogmas and creed. If you do not accept them it would be odd one would recite the creed at least weekly at mass. This is different as its also dogma body and soul for sure were separated. “He descended then on the third day ascended” This is not absolutely true for all mankind as the general judgement indicates

The difference being is no-one is descending into the underworld for the souls of the just. The intention of the resurrection of Christ isn’t to indicate a separation of soul and body as that was never intended to happen. Nor is the third day indicative of mankind but the Lord. What becomes indicative of mankind is …

So when we are talking what may have happened its clear she may have been assumed immediately with body and soul. The translation from death to life could well have happened immediately. Mary didn’t have to die which is why the language is she would have desired to die. she didn’t have to be subject to the grave.

The connection of Mary 3-days in the grave is indicative of Christ but we are talking completely different reasoning. Mary wasn’t descending to the underworld to save the just, she was being saved herself. And when the just were saved they didn’t wait three-days they were saved immediately

Gary I don’t understand why you think I disagree with anything above…
That you would think this suggests you have misunderstood my small point below perhaps.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not really at odds with what anyone is saying Blue. In fact I appreciate everyones (name removed by moderator)ut. Its the language and understanding of death-life which to a great deal is a mystery.

The issue is death-life in comprehension. In some sense we all must die to this world to live eternally. This sense of death-life in its most radical view is seen in the general resurrection

Mary suffered a temporal death.

As do those at the final judgement which it then becomes not so much comprehending Marys life-death but those at the final judgement to understand this translation.

Follow, in some sense the quickened assumed alive at the final resurrection must still pass from the death of this world to life and immediately in judgement from mortality to immortality.

Oops yes I do disagree with one point mentioned very early by Memaw about the particular judgement. That is also dogma, but beside that really its just much to think about.

 

[Vico]

You are entitled to your opinion of what she said… but I believe you are mistaken for the reasons repeatedly provided below.
If you are not posting about Memaw’s personal opinions I don’t understand why you address me when I observe Catholic inconsistencies in the normal meaning of her stated personal views .

Glad we finally agree that the Church does have a teaching that Mary died.
Of course one is free to believe Mary did not die. I do not understand why you feel the need to tell me that. I have said that myself every time I assert this teaching… that is what “non infallibly defined” means and allows.

Of course there is no Church teaching that Mary did not die. This is presently only an allowed theological opinion.

I see that you did not follow that my posts were about dogma.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (p. 208) gives more on the subject of non-death that there were some early opinions. (St. Epiphanius was born about 310 A.D.):St. Epiphanius, who had already instituted researches into the dose of Mary’s life says: Nobody knows how she departed this world. He leaves undecided whether she died a natural death, or whether (according to Luke 2, 35) she died by violence, or whether she (cr. Apac. 12, 14) still lives on immortal in some place unknown to us (Haer 78, 1 I. 24). The unknown author of a sermon,'Which has come down to us under the name of the Presbyter Timotheus of Jerusalem (6th-8th cent.) is of the opinion that the virgin is up to now immortal (that is, did not die), as He “who (in her) lived, translated her into the place of reception (that is, into the Heavenly Paradise)” (Or. in Symeonem) For Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom [from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin (cf. D 1073).

Denzinger quote is:

Denzinger, ST. PIUS V 1566-1572, Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII) *, [Condemned in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567] (excerpt):1073 73. No one except Christ is free from original sin; hence, the Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted from Adam, and all of her afflictions in this life as well as those of other just persons were the punishments for actual sin, or for original sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (p. 208) gives more on the subject of non-death that there were some early opinions. (St. Epiphanius was born about 310 A.D.):St. Epiphanius, who had already instituted researches into the dose of Mary’s life says: Nobody knows how she departed this world. He leaves undecided whether she died a natural death, or whether (according to Luke 2, 35) she died by violence, or whether she (cr. Apac. 12, 14) still lives on immortal in some place unknown to us (Haer 78, 1 I. 24). The unknown author of a sermon,'Which has come down to us under the name of the Presbyter Timotheus of Jerusalem (6th-8th cent.) is of the opinion that the virgin is up to now immortal (that is, did not die), as He “who (in her) lived, translated her into the place of reception (that is, into the Heavenly Paradise)” (Or. in Symeonem) For Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom [from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin (cf. D 1073).

Denzinger quote is:

Denzinger, ST. PIUS V 1566-1572, Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII) *, [Condemned in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567] (excerpt):1073 73. No one except Christ is free from original sin; hence, the Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted from Adam, and all of her afflictions in this life as well as those of other just persons were the punishments for actual sin, or for original sin.

Right, so once we begin to place this in comprehensive understanding of the final resurrection with dogma, then the comparison to Mary becomes even greater understood as by dogma.

The Privileges of the Mother of God

Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin. (De fide.)

From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence. (Sent. communis.)

In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.) She was immune from all sin mortal and venial.

Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.

Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man. (De fide.)

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)

Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)

Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)

So of what difference was the temporal death of Mary than that of Eve and Adam, had E+A not sinned and remained in the presence of the tree of life?