No eyewitnesses to Mary's Assumption?

[RealisticCatholic]

I’m feeling kinda iffy about the language regarding “Mary didn’t have to die.”

When we say Mary was conceived without Original Sin, do we only mean she had the fullness of grace from conception on, or that she also suffered no consequences of Original Sin as well?

It would seem only the former, since even Christ suffered, and yet suffering is technically a consequence of Original Sin.

Another way to see it is to show that we all die, and yet technically Original Sin is taken away at Baptism.

In a sense, death is natural. The Fall of Man didn’t corrupt nature but rather forfeited preternatural and supernatural gifts God had bestowed on Adam and Eve.

So it seems most likely Mary got sick and suffered throughout her life, and even died. Not dying would have been a miracle, it seems — and not merely just because she was immaculately conceived.

But this is just how I currently understand it.

 

[twf]

This is the thing that bugs me. Latins (I am a Latin) go on and on about how the Church is silent on the question of her death… yet the entire tradition of the Assumption is based on the tradition of the Dormition!!! There is no Assumption without the Dormition. Even in the Latin context, I have been to St Mary’s Major… the most important Marian Church in Latin Christendom, and the iconography very clearly depicts the Dormition.

My fellow Latins who deny she first died must be relying on some Gnostic secret knowledge, because Tradition is clear that She first died.

There’s only two options… either Pius XII drew on the tradition of the Dormition (that Our Lady first died and then shared in the resurrection of Her Son), as explicitly referenced in his encyclical, or he relied on some secret knowledge unknown to tradition. Dogmas are infallible but they draw on tradition not secret knowledge. For that reason, I actually find the implications of the “Our Lady never died” crowd a bit disturbing…

 

[po18guy]

And perhaps she was an extra-terrestrial who was beamed back up.

The ideas that you have been taught and are attempting to pass on have zero foundation in history. If you are unaware of this, they are man-made and have been concocted purely to oppose the Church which Christ founded. Are you certain that this is something that you want to do?

 

[po18guy]

Well then, you are not reading the bible as it was intended to be used - and you are missing salient points.

There are zero children of Mary written of - except Christ. None. The “brothers and sisters” of Christ are not her children. They are relatives and fellow Galileans - as was the cultural and linguistic norm.

Find a complete (i.e. Catholic) bible, which has the Book of Tobit and read chapters 7 and 8. You will see that a man married his “sister” but that she was not a direct relative, but only a member of the same tribe. Read Genesis 11 and 13. You see that Abraham and Lot were uncle and nephew, but were called brothers.

As to understanding the scriptures, read Have a read of Nehemiah 8:5-8. You see that the Mosaic law, which is seemingly plain, had to be explained by those with authority. Read Acts 8. You see that the Ethiopian Eunuch needed someone to teach him what the scripture prophesies meant - Phillip taught him.

Bible study, or even casual reading is not a do-it-yourself project.

 

[phil19034]

So there is probably a reason that we do not hear much about Mary’s life after Pentecost; John was trying not to paint a target on her.

this^^^^^^^

 

[phil19034]

This is the thing that bugs me. Latins (I am a Latin) go on and on about how the Church is silent on the question of her death… yet the entire tradition of the Assumption is based on the tradition of the Dormition!!! There is no Assumption without the Dormition. Even in the Latin context, I have been to St Mary’s Major… the most important Marian Church in Latin Christendom, and the iconography very clearly depicts the Dormition.

My fellow Latins who deny she first died must be relying on some Gnostic secret knowledge, because Tradition is clear that She first died.

There’s only two options… either Pius XII drew on the tradition of the Dormition (that Our Lady first died and then shared in the resurrection of Her Son), as explicitly referenced in his encyclical, or he relied on some secret knowledge unknown to tradition. Dogmas are infallible but they draw on tradition not secret knowledge. For that reason, I actually find the implications of the “Our Lady never died” crowd a bit disturbing…

I think this is just another area where there is a lack of solid catechesis.

The Dogma was declared in the 1950s, which was already a time where catechesis wasn’t what it should have been. Sure, it was better than it was in the 1970s and 1980s, but let’s remember… the people who taking part in the craziness of the 1970s were catechized in the 1950s and before.