St. Thomas never denied the Immaculate Conception

[RyanBlack]

The Dormition is particularly an Eastern belief. The Church does not teach that you have to believe that Mary died before being assumed into heaven. The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

more can be found here
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

I did not say that the Church teaches that you have to believe that Mary died before being assumed. What I said is “The teachings and traditions associated with the Dormition are very clear that the Theotokos died.” I stand by that. The traditional teachings of the Eastern Churches, as well as the hymns associated with the Feast of the Tradition are quite clear that we believe the Theotokos died prior to being assumed into heaven. I have never claimed that this teaching is a matter of dogma, but something need not be a matter of dogma to be Church teaching, so I disagree with those who claim that the Catholic Church, neither East nor West, has ever taught that the Theotokos died. For Eastern Catholics, our liturgies are among our most important sources of teaching, and the liturgical texts associated with the Dormition very clearly teach that the Theotokos died, so the Eastern Catholic Churches (at least those of the Byzantine Rite) do indeed teach that Mary, the Theotokos, died prior to being assumed into heaven.

 

[Sirach2]

Then neither should you have the perfect confidence to assert, “Aside from that, she did not suffer the effects of illness and natural death, which are the products of Original Sin.”

I hope you can see how your statement can be viewed as mere Latin triumphalism. Remember, we (non-Latins) are not the ones who accused you of “speaking out of turn.”

FIrst, your second paragraph above is totally disrespectful and offensive.

Brother JR spoke truthfully to you, and you can find the same sentiments of truth in this tract here at CAF. Note this paragraph:

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

 

[mardukm]

FIrst, your second paragraph above is totally disrespectful and offensive.

Brother JR spoke truthfully to you, and you can find the same sentiments of truth in this tract here at CAF. Note this paragraph:

Saying that those who assert Mary died are “speaking out of turn” is disrespectful. How is it disrespectful to point that out? What gives him the right and confidence to say “Mary did not die” yet accuse us who say Mary did die to be “speaking out of turn?” Sorry. Non-Latin Catholics are not your lap dogs.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Let me correct my previous statement.

Saying that those who assert Mary died are “speaking out of turn” is disrespectful. How is it disrespectful to point that out? What gives him the right and confidence to say “Mary did not die” yet accuse us who say Mary did die to be “speaking out of turn?” -]Sorry/-]. Non-Latin Catholics are not your lap dogs.

I’m not going to apologize for asserting my right to profess my belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Sirach2]

Saying that those who assert Mary died are “speaking out of turn” is disrespectful. How is it disrespectful to point that out? What gives him the right and confidence to say “Mary did not die” yet accuse us who say Mary did die to be “speaking out of turn?” Sorry. Non-Latin Catholics are not your lap dogs.

Blessings,
Marduk

More insults.

I have been through each of Brother’s posts, and did a Ctrl F with the wording “speaking out of turn,” and it is nowhere to be found. What Brother did point out is that this has been a point of contention between East and West and commented,
"My suggestion always is the same. “If the Church has [not] defined it**, forget who said what and stick with what the Church says. Don’t complicate your life**. Life has complications of its own.”

Our Church has not defined it, so what is the point in trying to convince us to believe as your rite apparently does?

 

[JReducation]

If we look at the decree on the Immaculate Conception, the actual dogma being defined is that Mary is conceived without Original Sin. If we look at the decree on the Assumption, the dogma being defined is that she is assumed into heaven body and soul.

The Holy Father did mention death in speaking on the Assumption, but it is not part of the decree. He mentions that it is a commonly held belief, but his wording is very careful to omit the term death. The reason being that while this is an idea that may be shared by many, it remains in the realm of hypothesis, not proven fact. The Church can only define facts.

The argument against her death is as compelling as that which is for her death. If we take the tradition at its word that illness, death and other human weaknesses are the consequences of Original Sin, then it is legitimate to question whether Mary died, since she did not have Original Sin.

There is an argument that some people raise and that is that Jesus did not have Original Sin and he died. However, that argument does not work. Jesus chose death, because it was necessary for redemption. Mary’s death would not have served a redemptive purpose, because Mary is not the Redeemer. Contemporary theologians and some classical ones as well, such as John Duns Scotus, Bonaventure, and Louis de Mondford extrapolate that there is no logical reason to believe that Mary experienced bodily death, but that what she experienced was a form of sleep.

Since the Church has not spoken on this question, it is not a matter of faith to believe that she died. It is a matter of faith to believe that she did not suffer any of the consequences of Original Sin, because she never had Original Sin.

The debate on whether Mary died or not is not an East vs West debate as some would like to think. It’s a debate between two schools of Mariology. In each school there are Catholics from the different Churches.

This takes me back to my original statement when I entered this thread. The Immaculate Conception has been defined by the Church. There is no more to be said on it. We can’t add or subtract a single letter to it. The only thing that we can do for those who do not understand it is to repeat for them what the Magisterium says and point them to the CCC. For those who do not believe, not much can be done until they are ready to ask the question and listen to the answer.

The best answer was given by Bl. John Duns Scotus.
**
God could do it.

It was appropriate that he do it.

So he did it.**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[mardukm]

More insults.

I have been through each of Brother’s posts, and did a Ctrl F with the wording “speaking out of turn,” and it is nowhere to be found.

It’s in his post#38. Here are his exact words:

The Church has never said that Mary died, nor that she did not die. To affirm this with such confidence is to speak out of turn…

That is very condescending.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Sirach2]

It’s in his post#38. Here are his exact words:

That is very condescending.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ok. I inserted “speaking” and that is why nothing came up. As for being condescending, I won’t comment.

 

[JReducation]

It’s in his post#38. Here are his exact words:

That is very condescending.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m sorry if it sounded condescending. It was not meant to be so. I was merely trying to find clear way of saying that to say that something is a matter of faith when the Church has not said so, it to speak without authority. I believe that we can agree on this.

As I said above, the Church has never said that Mary died. She avoids that word in her liturgy and in her theology. We cannot say what the Church does not say. We can say what the Church says.

She has always taught that the human condition is a result of Original Sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Sirach2,

Ok. I inserted “speaking” and that is why nothing came up. As for being condescending, I won’t comment.

Permit me to explain why to assert the mortality of the Theotokos is so important to Oriental and Easterns Catholics.

As far as I know, EVERYONE (Latins, Orientals and Easterns) adheres to the anthropology of the great Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria who asserted that God created Adam and Eve MORTAL, but preserved them from death and corruption through GRACE. Hence, mortality is part of human nature. To claim that Mary was not mortal means that Mary did not have a human nature, and if Mary did not have a human nature, then this obliterates a very basic foundational teaching of our common Faith that our Lord received our human nature from the Theotokos.

This fact (that mortality is inherent in human nature) explains the meaning and reason for the Catholic Church to speak of the “stain” of Original Sin. We understand the “stain” to be a consequence of the Original Sin. But the “stain” does not refer to physical death and corruption because, as Pope St. Athanasius taught, death and corruption was already inherent in our human nature. The stain to our human nature, rather, is the spiritual separation from God that resulted from the Original Sin of our first parents (that spiritual separation, of course, being the equivalent of the loss of Original Justice/Original Sanctity). This STAIN is specifically what the doctrine of the IC teaches God saved Mary from, and it is the same STAIN that the Church teaches is removed from us at Baptism. The STAIN never refers to mortality, according to the Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church.

So to claim that by the teaching of the IC, Mary was not mortal (per brother JReducation). it not only contradicts the explicit teaching of the IC (the term “stain” rightly understood), but it also contradicts one of the most basic tenets of our Faith about Jesus receiving our human nature. If Mary was not mortal, then Jesus did not receive our human nature, which is as close to heterodox as you can get.

I hope that explains why the matter might have a more poignant relevance for Orientals and Easterns than to Latins (though I’m sure there are also Latins who understand the utter theological import of admitting the mortality of the Theotokos).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[brb3]

Dear brother Sirach2,

Permit me to explain why to assert the mortality of the Theotokos is so important to Oriental and Easterns Catholics.

As far as I know, EVERYONE (Latins, Orientals and Easterns) adheres to the anthropology of the great Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria who asserted that God created Adam and Eve MORTAL, but preserved them from death and corruption through GRACE. Hence, mortality is part of human nature. To claim that Mary was not mortal means that Mary did not have a human nature, and if Mary did not have a human nature, then this obliterates a very basic foundational teaching of our common Faith that our Lord received our human nature from the Theotokos.

This fact (that mortality is inherent in human nature) explains the meaning and reason for the Catholic Church to speak of the “stain” of Original Sin. We understand the “stain” to be a consequence of the Original Sin. But the “stain” does not refer to physical death and corruption because, as Pope St. Athanasius taught, death and corruption was already inherent in our human nature. The stain to our human nature, rather, is the spiritual separation from God that resulted from the Original Sin of our first parents (that spiritual separation, of course, being the equivalent of the loss of Original Justice/Original Sanctity). This STAIN is specifically what the doctrine of the IC teaches God saved Mary from, and it is the same STAIN that the Church teaches is removed from us at Baptism. The STAIN never refers to mortality, according to the Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church.

So to claim that by the teaching of the IC, Mary was not mortal (per brother JReducation). it not only contradicts the explicit teaching of the IC (the term “stain” rightly understood), but it also contradicts one of the most basic tenets of our Faith about Jesus receiving our human nature. If Mary was not mortal, then Jesus did not receive our human nature, which is as close to heterodox as you can get.

I hope that explains why the matter might have a more poignant relevance for Orientals and Easterns than to Latins (though I’m sure there are also Latins who understand the utter theological import of admitting the mortality of the Theotokos).

Blessings,
Marduk

Very well stated!! Will be interesting to see if any can answer this potential problem in RCC Marian Theology.

 

[JReducation]

Dear brother Sirach2,

Permit me to explain why to assert the mortality of the Theotokos is so important to Oriental and Easterns Catholics.

As far as I know, EVERYONE (Latins, Orientals and Easterns) adheres to the anthropology of the great Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria who asserted that God created Adam and Eve MORTAL, but preserved them from death and corruption through GRACE. Hence, mortality is part of human nature. To claim that Mary was not mortal means that Mary did not have a human nature, and if Mary did not have a human nature, then this obliterates a very basic foundational teaching of our common Faith that our Lord received our human nature from the Theotokos.

This fact (that mortality is inherent in human nature) explains the meaning and reason for the Catholic Church to speak of the “stain” of Original Sin. We understand the “stain” to be a consequence of the Original Sin. But the “stain” does not refer to physical death and corruption because, as Pope St. Athanasius taught, death and corruption was already inherent in our human nature. The stain to our human nature, rather, is the spiritual separation from God that resulted from the Original Sin of our first parents (that spiritual separation, of course, being the equivalent of the loss of Original Justice/Original Sanctity). This STAIN is specifically what the doctrine of the IC teaches God saved Mary from, and it is the same STAIN that the Church teaches is removed from us at Baptism. The STAIN never refers to mortality, according to the Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church.

So to claim that by the teaching of the IC, Mary was not mortal (per brother JReducation). it not only contradicts the explicit teaching of the IC (the term “stain” rightly understood), but it also contradicts one of the most basic tenets of our Faith about Jesus receiving our human nature. If Mary was not mortal, then Jesus did not receive our human nature, which is as close to heterodox as you can get.

I hope that explains why the matter might have a more poignant relevance for Orientals and Easterns than to Latins (though I’m sure there are also Latins who understand the utter theological import of admitting the mortality of the Theotokos).

Blessings,
Marduk

First of all, you cannot make this an East vs West issue, because it’s not. What’s important to the East is equally important to the West as far as dogma and morals go. Customs, rites and other accidentals are another story.

Second, as you say Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria who asserted that God created Adam and Eve MORTAL, but preserved them from death and corruption through GRACE.

The other side of the discussion is that Mary, like the first Eve, is mortal and like the first Eve is preserved from death and corruption through grace, grace that she never loses as did the first Eve. No one has said that Mary is not mortal. She is the New Eve.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother (sister?) brb3,

Very well stated!! Will be interesting to see if any can answer this potential problem in RCC Marian Theology.

I wouldn’t be so quick to apply this potential problem to the Latin Catholic CHURCH. As the immortalist camp has pointed out, the matter is not defined. Though that statement itself is problematic, IMO, since the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium is also graced with God’s infallibility, not merely definitions of Faith promulgated by an Ecumenical Council or a Pope. I do believe the mortality of the Theotokos is part of the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and the immortalist camp really has no magisterial support on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

First of all, you cannot make this an East vs West issue, because it’s not. What’s important to the East is equally important to the West as far as dogma and morals go. Customs, rites and other accidentals are another story.

I agree it’s not an East-West issue because there are many in the West who also believe that Mary died (and certainly there is more support for the belief that Mary died from the Latin Magisterium than otherwise - Munificentissimus Deus being a very obvious source for the belief that Mary died).

Second, as you say Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria who asserted that God created Adam and Eve MORTAL, but preserved them from death and corruption through GRACE.

The other side of the discussion is that Mary, like the first Eve, is mortal and like the first Eve is preserved from death and corruption through grace, grace that she never loses as did the first Eve. No one has said that Mary is not mortal. She is the New Eve.

I can accept the possibility that perhaps at the point of death, Mary received the Grace of immortality. At least that would not contradict the dogma that our Lord received our human nature (inherently mortal) from the Theotokos. But to say that the Theotokos received this Grace at the moment of the IC not only has no support from the explicit teaching of the IC itself, but it would indicate that Jesus did not receive our human nature (inherently mortal) when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JReducation]

Dear brother (sister?) brb3,

I wouldn’t be so quick to apply this potential problem to the Latin Catholic CHURCH. As the immortalist camp has pointed out, the matter is not defined. Though that statement itself is problematic, IMO, since the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium is also graced with God’s infallibility, not merely definitions of Faith promulgated by an Ecumenical Council or a Pope. I do believe the mortality of the Theotokos is part of the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and the immortalist camp really has no magisterial support on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

No one said that Mary is not mortal. What is being said is that she enjoys what Eve lost due to sin. God created Eve mortal, but through his grace protected her from death and corruption until she lost that grace.

God created Mary mortal, through his grace protected her from death and corruption. Unlike the first Eve, the New Eve did not lose God’s grace. This is the position of the other side.

The Church believes that Mary is mortal, as in human.

The term mortal has several meanings. One of them is related to humanity. The other is related to death. A dog or cat are mortal, because they die. They are not human. Death is not what makes one human.

On the other side, immortality does not detract from human nature. Christ is immortal, but is very human. He has not ceased to be the God-Man. The Eucharist gives witness to this. There would be no body and blood to offer to the Father, if he were not human. As we pray in the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, "we offer you the humanity and divinity of your Son . . . " This son will never die, but he has not lost his human nature.

Mary does not lose her human nature, because she does not die. Like the first Eve, she’s protected by God’s grace. That’s all that the other school is saying.

This connects back to the Immaculate Conception in that we know that Mary was conceived without the sin of Eve.

The most important point here, if one wants to make a case for it is that the Church has never taught that Mary died. It has been mentioned, but it is not part of the Ordinary or Extraordinary teachings of the Magisterium. Again, we go back to liturgy.

The liturgy is the best teacher of what the Church believes. Look at the words of the liturgy for the Solemnity of the Assumption and the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. Both point to the fact that Mary attained what Eve lost.

That’s why I go back to where I came in. The best answer to the question about Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption is in the CCC, much better than anything that we can say here. It’s clear, to the point and does not say what the Church does not want to say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[mardukm]

No one said that Mary is not mortal. What is being said is that she enjoys what Eve lost due to sin. God created Eve mortal, but through his grace protected her from death and corruption until she lost that grace.

God created Mary mortal, through his grace protected her from death and corruption. Unlike the first Eve, the New Eve did not lose God’s grace. This is the position of the other side.

We know that Mary’s body suffered corruption because it aged. Medical science proves that aging is a natural process of corruption, and past the age of around 20, the body naturally debilitates. Christ lived to 33 years of age, so his body was undergoing corruption. He was mortal (subject to death and corruption) just like us before His resurrection, just as Mary was mortal (subject to death and corruption) just like us. Adam and Eve did not age when they were in the Garden of Eden. Only after they lost the Grace of immortality did they begin to age. That fact that Mary aged means she did not have the Grace of immortality given to her at the IC.

The Church believes that Mary is mortal, as in human.

The term mortal has several meanings. One of them is related to humanity. The other is related to death. A dog or cat are mortal, because they die. They are not human. Death is not what makes one human.

Yes, death is one of the things that makes us human (the other thing is the rational soul). Death and corruption is a natural trait of all created beings.

On the other side, immortality does not detract from human nature. Christ is immortal, but is very human. He has not ceased to be the God-Man. The Eucharist gives witness to this. There would be no body and blood to offer to the Father, if he were not human. As we pray in the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, "we offer you the humanity and divinity of your Son . . . " This son will never die, but he has not lost his human nature. Mary does not lose her human nature, because she does not die.

That’s a non-sequitur. You can’t compare the resurrected body of Christ to his mortal body on earth, which indeed aged and died.

Like the first Eve, she’s protected by God’s grace. That’s all that the other school is saying.

Like I said, if you mean she was protected by God’s Grace at the point of death, I’ll accept that possibility. But you are claiming that she received this Grace at the IC, which has no support from the dogma itself, aside from being contradictory to other basic tenets of the Faith.

This connects back to the Immaculate Conception in that we know that Mary was conceived without the sin of Eve.

And that’s the whole problem.

The most important point here, if one wants to make a case for it is that the Church has never taught that Mary died. It has been mentioned, but it is not part of the Ordinary or Extraordinary teachings of the Magisterium. Again, we go back to liturgy.

The liturgy is the best teacher of what the Church believes. Look at the words of the liturgy for the Solemnity of the Assumption and the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. Both point to the fact that Mary attained what Eve lost.

We know what it was that Eve lost that Mary attained at the IC - the same thing we all attain at Baptism - Original Justice/Original Sanctity - the lack of which is what is referred to as the STAIN of Original Sin. There is absolutely no patristic or magisterial support for the idea that Mary received the Grace of immortality at her IC. Even the reality of the fact that she aged contradicts that idea.

That’s why I go back to where I came in. The best answer to the question about Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption is in the CCC, much better than anything that we can say here. It’s clear, to the point and does not say what the Church does not want to say.

Where does the CCC state that Mary received the Grace of immortality at the IC? I would agree that Mary received all Graces, but that doesn’t mean she received them all at the IC, a claim not supportable by the words of the dogma itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JIB]

I don’t want to interrupt a very interesting conversation, but isn’t it possible that Mary was mortal but didn’t die? Perhaps she was assumed into heaven before death? If I’m off base just carry on…

 

[RyanBlack]

We Eastern Catholics (at least of the Byzantine rite) can say that the Theotokos died, because neither our liturgical hymns for the Feast of the Dormition nor our theological traditions avoid saying that the Theotokos died; on the contrary, they specifically say that she died.

 

[mardukm]

We Eastern Catholics (at least of the Byzantine rite) can say that the Theotokos died, because neither our liturgical hymns for the Feast of the Dormition nor our theological traditions avoid saying that the Theotokos died; on the contrary, they specifically say that she died.

It’s interesting that the old Catholic Encyclopedia (surely a dependable source for the belief of Latin Catholics of that day) describes the Assumption as the raising up of Mary after her DEATH. The old Baltimore Catechism, in its description of the Five Glorious Mysteries, likewise describes the Assumption as the taking up of Mary body and soul into heaven after her DEATH. It appears that this has always been the Traditional belief of the Latin Catholic Church.

I have to wonder really if the Latin Liturgies for the Feasts don’t mention her death at all. Perhaps the Liturgy mentions her “falling asleep” or “reposing” or some such other expression that is equivalent to “death,” yet immortalists reinterpret the expressions to not mean death.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JReducation]

The prayers in the Latin Rite Missal and Breviary for the Solemnity of the Assumption say:

Almighty God,
you gave a humble virgin the privilege of being the mother of your Son,
and crowned her with the glory of heaven.
May the prayers of the Virgin Mary
bring us to the salvation of Christ
and raise us up to eternal life.

and

All-powerful and ever-living God,
you raised the sinless Virgin Mary,
mother of your Son,
body and soul to the glory of heaven.
May we see heaven as our final goal
and come to share her glory.

There is a third option that follows the exact wording of the CCC, "When the course of her earthly life was over, . . . "

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV