Mary's life after the crucifixion

[halleone]

I am wondering if there is anything known about how long after the crucifixion Our Lady lived?

 

[Erikzen]

Hyppolitus of Thebes claimed that Mary lived for 11 years after the death of her son Jesus, dying in 41 AD. I think this is where many protestants hold their opinion.

I have heard somewhere (I think it was either an Orthodox or Catholic that told me this) that it is believed that she was assumed into Heaven, but that was long ago and I wouldn’t presume to speak authoritatively on it.

 

[USMC_Convert]

I’ve heard both 11 and 15 years after the death of Jesus.

Why?

 

[Crusaderbear]

I’ve heard she was 72, and passed on (maybe died, maybe assumed into heaven) somewhere in southern Turkey. Doing the math - birthed Jesus abot 15, 33 years later he was crucified, so Mary was about 48 at that time. So another 24 years. She was supposedly a major player in the early Christian expansion.

I’m sorry, but can’t remember where I read that, I’ll look around some…

 

[pensmama87]

I have heard that St. Luke likely got much of his Gospel from Mary directly.

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

I have reading about the life of Mary in a diary of Catherine Emmerich, who also wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. She had visions of these events and could describe things very well.

 

[joeybaggz]

I have heard somewhere (I think it was either an Orthodox or Catholic that told me this) that it is believed that she was assumed into Heaven, but that was long ago and I wouldn’t presume to speak authoritatively on it.

Ths Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a dogma of the Catholic faith, and the feast day commemorating it is (I believe) August 15. Personally it is a wonderful concept as it prefigured our own resurrection of the body. He assumption (not ascension!) was a gift of her son. It is an extra biblical dogma (not anti biblical as some of our BOC friends might say), but, at least for me, it is supported by the scriptural truth that the beloved disciple John stood by Mary’s side at the crucifixion, and Jesus himself gave Mary into John’s temporal care. John would have known what happened to Mary and made it known to the other apostles.

Shalom

 

[thistle]

I have reading about the life of Mary in a diary of Catherine Emmerich, who also wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. She had visions of these events and could describe things very well.

The revelations of Anne Emmerich are NOT approved by the Church. In fact she did not even write anything. They were written by the poet Clemens Brentano who interviewed her. The Church is extremely skeptical about what is written.

 

[commenter]

I’ve heard she was 72, and passed on (maybe died, maybe assumed into heaven) somewhere in southern Turkey. Doing the math - birthed Jesus abot 15, 33 years later he was crucified, so Mary was about 48 at that time. So another 24 years. She was supposedly a major player in the early Christian expansion.

I’m sorry, but can’t remember where I read that, I’ll look around some…

It is fun to speculate. But more and more, I prefer people not do that, because of the times in which **we **live.

First, we do not know if Mary was 15, or 30, or whatever age when Jesus was born. We don’t even know the exact year Jesus was born. We have various, sometimes contradictory, reports from ancient times about the details of Mary’s life, supplemented by unapproved recent private revelations.** None of this speculation is relevant to our **salvation. When I was a child, say 1960, the facts of **public **revelation were well communicated, understood, and accepted by almost all Catholics, largely by most Christians, and to some extent by society as a whole.

Today we live in a world where many Catholics don’t know much **public **revelation, where the basics of Christianity are under attack, where the secular world is even abandoning the basic concepts of Reason itself. Many well meaning Catholics don’t know the difference in importance between a defined dogma and guesses about Mary’s favorite color or dietary preferences.

I urge readers to focus on - defend, proclaim - defined, public revelation, and how it impacts on our spiritual growth and salvation; then give a *little *attention to approved private revelation, such as Fatima.

When the crucial things are under attack - scripture, defined sacred tradition - we must be clear about what’s crucial for our own and others’ salvation. That might mean avoiding some fun speculation, unfortunately.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I really don’t think praying for world peace, which was the message of the Fatima apparition, is detrimental to anybody’s salvation. In fact I’d say it’s helpful. So I’m not sure why such a big concern about it.

Anyway as someone already said, the Assumption of Mary is a dogma of the Church and the Feast of the Assumption is generally a Holy Day of Obligation (except the US Bishops got permission for people to not have to attend Mass if it falls on Saturday or Monday). So Mary’s Assumption is pretty essential for Catholics.

 

[commenter]

I really don’t think praying for world peace, which was the message of the Fatima apparition, is detrimental to anybody’s salvation. In fact I’d say it’s helpful. So I’m not sure why such a big concern about it.

Anyway as someone already said, the Assumption of Mary is a dogma of the Church and the Feast of the Assumption is generally a Holy Day of Obligation (except the US Bishops got permission for people to not have to attend Mass if it falls on Saturday or Monday). So Mary’s Assumption is pretty essential for Catholics.

The Assumption, defined as dogma, is part of public revelation. There is a reason why this (or at least some aspects of the Assumption) is defined. There is a reason why the Church has chosen not to make “public revelation” so much else about Mary’s and Jesus’ life.

The best answer as to what happened to Mary after the crucifixion, besides what is mentioned in Scripture, and the Assumption, is “we don’t know”. Years ago, when doctrine was far better taught, it was fun to read about how Mary was a vegetarian, that she made Jesus’s clothes which grew automatically as he got bigger, that Jesus was exactly 6 feet tall, and so on. None of this is from the Magisterium. Speculation that might have been fun, and harmless, 60 years ago, is risky today because people don’t know that the Assumption is defined doctrine, and other guesses about Mary’s life span, etc, are just guesses. It ends up people thinking the Assumption is just a guess.

But now dogma itself is under attack. We should focus our priority on what the Magisterium itself teaches, and differentiate it from other things. If you try to prioritize everything, that ends up prioritizing nothing.

 

[anon90438963]

There’s a tradition that Mary went with St. John to Ephesus, where the Holy House may be visited today, and that she constructed a type of Way of the Cross on the property and meditated at it daily. I don’t know where this story comes from but I like to think it was likely true.We know John took her in, that she helped foster the early Church, and quite likely she meditated daily on the Passion–pondered its meaning in her heart. There are some wonderful Eastern Orthodox paintings of Mary’s “dormition,” a tradition Catholics don’t seem to have but one I find beautiful.We know she was assumed body and soul into heaven at some point. I like to think she was well into old age! No tomb of Mary (or Joseph, either, interestingly) has ever been claimed.

 

[halleone]

There’s a tradition that Mary went with St. John to Ephesus, where the Holy House may be visited today, and that she constructed a type of Way of the Cross on the property and meditated at it daily. I don’t know where this story comes from but I like to think it was likely true.We know John took her in, that she helped foster the early Church, and quite likely she meditated daily on the Passion–pondered its meaning in her heart. There are some wonderful Eastern Orthodox paintings of Mary’s “dormition,” a tradition Catholics don’t seem to have but one I find beautiful.We know she was assumed body and soul into heaven at some point. I like to think she was well into old age! No tomb of Mary (or Joseph, either, interestingly) has ever been claimed.

Thank you for this lovely answer.

 

[Samuel_Mary]

As others have mentioned, it is believed she went with St John to Ephesus - this would be some years before St John, who lived a long life, went to Patmos and had his revelations. (Seeing, among so much else; his old friend and mother figure, the woman he loved, in a platonic sense, '‘clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet’’ - must have been a profound experience) . Some believe she was assumed into Heaven in Ephesus, but I think it’s more likely she went back to Jerusalem. She may have gone back for the Council of Jerusalem? Alternatively she may have simply felt the end of her natural life was near and wanted, as a perfect daughter of Zion, to die in the holy city. I’d put her death at between AD 48 and AD 51 on the balance of probabilities. This would put her age at - if we assume 14/15 years old at time of the incarnation - early to mid sixties. Interesting though there is a tradition that due to her purity and sinlessness Our Lady always looked younger than she was. There are accordingly few if any depictions that I’m aware of her looking elderly; rather never more than middle-aged.

 

[zab]

Here is a video of Dormition Abbey in Jerusalem, believed to be the place where Mary died (fell asleep) and was assumed into heaven. It is a good video but I remember a couple of other things that were pointed out to us on our pilgrimage. One thing was (in the lower part of the church) a side little area, carved out place that was said to be part of the home of the Apostle John who took Mary into his home when Jesus died. Another thing pointed out in the mosaics is an icon mosaic of Jesus standing in white holding Mary. It is above the statue of Mary. We usually see icons of Mary holding infant Jesus. This is the reverse.

bing.com/videos/search?q=dormition+abbey+on+mount+zion+in+jerusalem&view=detail&mid=E99CCC5A223AA44D9142E99CCC5A223AA44D9142&FORM=VIRE

 

[Brendan_64]

The revelations of Anne Emmerich are NOT approved by the Church. In fact she did not even write anything. They were written by the poet Clemens Brentano who interviewed her. The Church is extremely skeptical about what is written.

The Church is extremely sceptical about this? Really? Where has the Church stated this?

The visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich are private revelations and as such the Faithful are not bound to accept them. But the Church has not declared them to be invalid.

They are very beautiful and inspiring and reading these beautiful meditations is a very moving experience which can bring one closer to Christ and His Passion.

If the Church is very sceptical of these visions, then why have they not been declared invalid?

The faithful are free to accept and believe the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Church is extremely sceptical about this? Really? Where has the Church stated this?

The visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich are private revelations and as such the Faithful are not bound to accept them. But the Church has not declared them to be invalid.

They are very beautiful and inspiring and reading these beautiful meditations is a very moving experience which can bring one closer to Christ and His Passion.

If the Church is very sceptical of these visions, then why have they not been declared invalid?

The faithful are free to accept and believe the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.

The controversy surrounding the writings concerning Anne Catherine Emmerich’s visions is one of the most famous of its sort – and it spanned decades, from the suspension of the cause in 1928 because the issues surrounding the authenticity of the writings through to the Blessed Paul VI allowing the cause to proceed anew…to the judgment that, in fact, it was impossible, even for scholars in the field, to untangle the matter of what could rightly be attributed to Anne Catherine Emmerich and what was redacted in by Clemens Brentano. The matter involved an exhausting analysis.

The cause of beatification advanced ultimately on condition that the writings were completely excluded and the assessment was on the heroicity of the virtues of the candidate for beatification. The beatification was not an endorsement of her writings.

From Catholic News Service…

Vatican confirms papal plans to beatify nun who inspired Gibson film
Catholic News Service ^

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The Vatican confirmed that Pope John Paul II plans to beatify a controversial 19th-century nun whose visions helped inspire Mel Gibson to make the movie “The Passion of the Christ.”

German Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich will be proclaimed “blessed” along with four others Oct. 3 in a Mass at the Vatican, officials at the Congregation for Saints’ Causes told Catholic News Service June 16. Beatification is a major step toward sainthood.

Jewish leaders have criticized the planned beatification, saying it would harm Christian-Jewish relations. They said Sister Emmerich’s published visions are anti-Semitic in their negative portrayal of Jews.

Gibson has said he was inspired to make his movie in part by Sister Emmerich’s book of visions, “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” which added detailed episodes to the Gospel accounts of Christ’s suffering and death.

Vatican experts, however, have questioned whether she actually wrote the book; for that reason, they said, the accounts of her visions did not play a part in the decision to beatify her.

Sister Emmerich was practically illiterate, and her visions were written down and elaborated by a popular romantic poet of the time, Clemens Brentano. He published them after Sister Emmerich’s death in 1824.

“It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this. There is a serious problem of authenticity,” said Jesuit Father Peter Gumpel, who helped study the issue for the Vatican’s Congregation for Saints’ Causes.

 

[Brendan_64]

The cause of beatification advanced ultimately on condition that the writings were completely excluded and the assessment was on the heroicity of the virtues of the candidate for beatification. The beatification was not an endorsement of her writings.

And nor is that a judgement against the visions.

The faithful are free to accept the visions as written. As is the case with all private revelations where a negative judgement has not been made.

The Church does not discourage the faithful from believing the visions of Blessed Sr Emmerich.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And nor is that a judgement against the visions.

The faithful are free to accept the visions as written. As is the case with all private revelations where a negative judgement has not been made.

The Church does not discourage the faithful from believing the visions of Blessed Sr Emmerich.

The faithful are warned that:

1. The beatification of the servant of God was in no way an endorsement of writings that have been published under her name.
2. The writings can, by no means, be authenticated as being hers.

That is the judgment of the Holy See.

 

[Brendan_64]

The faithful are warned that:

1. The beatification of the servant of God was in no way an endorsement of writings that have been published under her name.
2. The writings can, by no means, be authenticated as being hers.

That is the judgment of the Holy See.

That is not a negative judgement against the visions. It simply says that her beatification was not linked to the visions and that the writings cannot be authenticated. That is not the same as saying that the writings are deemed inauthentic.

The faithful are free to believe the visions (as they are free to reject them). That is the case with private revelations that have not been declared to be non-supernatural.