The assumption of Mary

[Pax]

cont. from previous post.

Now if this applies to us and to the prophets, it applies to the mother of the Lord Jesus in even more profound ways. We know what was carried in the Ark, and we know that Jesus is the bread that came down from heaven, that he was the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets, and that he is the high priest of the new covenant. Jesus was carried in the womb of the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary and the Ark are clearly connected in scripture and there is the unmistakable connection in Rev 11 and 12.

There is something else that should be remembered. Jesus is the most perfect reflection of the Father’s love. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus obeyed the commandments with an unmatched perfection. To the Jews, honoring your father and mother meant not only to honor them but to glorify them. Jesus loved his mother like no son has ever loved their mother. He honored and glorified her in ways that only the Second Person of the Trinity could. Catholic teaching merely reflects what Jesus did for Mary. Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven….why not Mary?

You claim that the teaching of the Assumption is not contained in scripture and that it came late to scene in Christian understandings. There are serious problems with this contention. I hope the scriptural part has already been adequately addressed. If you know Christian history you will quickly realize how conservative the early church was and how if fiercely fought any and all heresies. The teaching of the Assumption was never contested. The reason for this is because it had already been accepted before it became common in Christian prayers where is seems to have appeared everywhere simultaneously. Moreover, the early Christians were quite fanatical about protecting and preserving the bones of saints and martyrs. The remains of the apostles, saints, and martyrs from the early church are still kept safe today. Mary’s remains are nowhere to be found and no Christian church community has ever claimed to possess them. This is significant in light of Christian practice.

Look at the entire picture. Look at the threads of this beautiful and holy tapestry of God’s work as it has unfolded in scripture and tradition. It is fitting and wondrous. And never forget that it was in Luke chapter one where the angel Gabriel tells Mary, “For nothing is impossible with God.”

 

[Paul_W]

homer:

There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary. The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn’t John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it?

 

[Paul_W]

homer:

There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary. The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn’t John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it?

Although many scholars assume that the Gospel of John was written in the 90’s, we don’t know that for a fact. It may have been written earlier. For example, John doesn’t mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Perhaps it didn’t fit his Gospel thematically, or perhaps it hadn’t happened yet.

But even if it was written in the 90’s, and Mary, the Holy Mother of God, lived to be 110, is that so incredibly unbelievable? Is it impossible for someone to live that long?

 

[jimmy]

kinsman

My point with the analogy was that there were no eye witnesses to the break in so how do you know that it happened. Broken glass is not the same thing as an eye witness. This analogy does not prove your point in any way.

Did you read my posts? How can you just dismiss them like you did?

 

[Becky]

Kinsman:

This is what makes Christianity unique among all other “religions” on earth. Our Scriptures contain the reports of real historical events by eyewitnesses. Men and women who were actually there! That is not the case with the doctrine regarding Mary’s bodily assumption. This doctrine bears no historical proof.

A** dubious occurrence which has absolutely no eyewitnesses, no historical backing, and no Apostolic support.** This is totally incongruent with the nature of the true Christian faith which is based on historical facts.

(Emphasis mine.)

In general, good post Kinsman! Reps points go to you! Keep up the good work!

Becky

 

[mkw]

Homer, this response is for you on a personal level. I need to thank you, and i mean this from my heart, Your challenges of the Catholic Faith/practices/Traditions etc… have caused me to want to read and study your point of view.

I can say with all honesty, that the more I read and learn, the more sure I am that I converted to the one true church started by Jesus Christ. ONE-HOLY-CATHOLIC-APOSTOLIC church :angel1:

Keep the threads coming Homer,I continue to learn more and more. God Bless You

 

[jimmy]

For trying to change the subject. BTW, the HS gave us the Bible

This was with my reputations.
I did not change the subject in that post.
The Holy Spirit may have given us the bible, but it was done through the early catholic church fathers that he was working.
The decision of which books would go into the bible was not an arbitrary process. They decided based on which books matched what they taught. There was no contradiction to what they taught, in the bible. The thing is, if they had the Holy Spirit to help them when they were putting the bible together they must have had the Holy Spirit when interpreting the books. Yet somehow the protestants reject there teachings but they accept the book that they put together.

 

[Katholikos]

The two ancient Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, who were one unified body called the Catholic Church for the first thousand years of Christian history, both hold to the belief that Mary was taken to heaven, body and soul, as were Enoch and Elijah before her.

“By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was found no more because God had taken him” Heb 11:5.

“And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” 2 Kings 2:11b.

Protestants limit themselves (it was their choice) to the words contained in Martin Luther’s 66-book cut version of the Bible. They wrongly believe that this abbreviated Bible contains all that man needs to know about his salvation, and that it is God’s instruction book for Christianity. But the Bible didn’t exist until the Catholic Church canonized and formed it when she was nearly 400 years old.

Judaism is built upon oral tradition, the teaching of the prophets.
Christianity is built upon oral tradition, the teaching of the Apostles. The CC is built upon the Apostles and the Prophets (Ephesians 2:19-20).

Some of the oral tradition in Judaism was written down and became the Old Testament. And some of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition was written down and became the New Testament. The remainder was preserved in other ways, but it is just as much the “Word of God” as the New Testament.

The Assumption of Mary is contained in that part of Sacred Apostolic Tradition that did not become Scripture. Naturally, Protestants who limit themselves to what’s written in the NT will not accept it. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, whose traditions reach back 2,000 years, teach the Assumption of Mary and have always held it to be true since the Apostles walked this earth. They were there; they lived it. Protestants, many of whose churches have existed only since the 19th or 20th century, won’t believe it unless they can read about it in a book the Catholic Church produced when she was almost 400 years old.

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay
Ex-Protestant, agnostic, atheist
Industrial-Strength Catholic

 

[Katholikos]

BTW, the HS gave us the Bible

Tell us what kind of pen the Holy Spirit used. What did He write it on?

 

[Katholikos]

The OP is about a Marian dogma, not about where the Bible comes from. RC apologists always try to change the subject, well, changing the subject isn’t providing direct evidence for Mary’s supposed assumption

To the anonymous person who left this comment on my “reputation.”

You and other Protestants allege that if the Assumption of Mary isn’t in the Bible, it didn’t happen.

Therefore, I have every right to challenge your allegation that the only "direct evidence" for the Assumption (and other doctrines) is contained in the Bible and raise questions about the Bible’s origin.

Could you please provide me with the book(s), chapter(s), and verse(s) that state that the Bible is the only source of “direct evidence” for Christian history or doctrine?

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

 

[jimmy]

The OP is about a Marian dogma, not about where the Bible comes from. RC apologists always try to change the subject, well, changing the subject isn’t providing direct evidence for Mary’s supposed assumption

Your doubt comes from the fact that it is not contained in the bible. If the Catholic church created the bible and the Catholic church believes the Assumption, and they also teach that tradition is just as important as the written word(wich can be backed up from the bible.). Then we have every right to state the fact that the bible was created by our church fathers, since it is the truth. The Catholic church created the bible based on the teachings of the church therefore the bible only has authority on issues that it covers.

 

[Defender]

Kinsman,

There is no “proof text” in the Bible that will give you absolute assurance that Mary was assumed into heaven.

There is no point in asking for one, because as you well know, it does not exist.

As several people have pointed out, we Catholics can give you the reasons that we hold the beliefs we do, and we can demonstrate that these beliefs never in any way contradict Scripture. We can show you all the reasons that Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, and in fact contradicts the Bible. We can explain what is meant by Sacred Tradition (distinct from the “traditions of men”) and by the Deposit of Faith, which has been handed down from the Apostles but not written down in Scripture.

But we cannot give you “proof” on the terms that you demand. You will always hold that trump card,“But you haven’t PROVEN it from the Bible!”

We cannot, and will not be able to provide you with a verse from the Bible that proves the truth of the Assumption. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That doesn’t mean the Apostles didn’t witness it. It doesn’t mean God didn’t want it to be taught and believed.

There is a number of things that Christians do and believe that aren’t explicitly taught in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity has already been mentioned. Worship on Sunday rather than on the Sabbath day is another. The form of the celebration of the Sunday liturgy is something the Apostles surely taught their new converts, yet there is no liturgical handbook in the canon of Scripture.

We believe that Jesus founded a Church, and that He promised that His Church would remain free of doctrinal error. He warned that some claiming to be in the Church would lead people astray with false teachings, but that the Church itself would not teach false doctrine. See Mt. 16:18 - if a Divinely founded Church begins teaching false doctrine, one can safely assume the gates of hell have prevailed against it, and therefore Jesus is a liar. We know Jesus can be trusted, and therefore, so can the Church.

Earlier you stated:

Kinsman:

Doctrinal corruption found its way into the historic, universal Church (including the church of Rome) almost from its very beginning. The Epistles demonstrate this. The quest of the Reformers in the 1500s was to get back to a Biblically based faith, free from the leaven introduced by men.

My question is this: If the Church taught corrupt doctrines almost from the beginning, what about all the poor souls who wanted to follow Jesus Christ before 1517? Where would they go to receive the authentic, true, pure Faith, free of doctrinal corruption? If not to the universal Church founded by Jesus, then where? And if a new believer could not find such a Church until the Reformers came along, wouldn’t that contradict what Jesus said in Mt 28:20 “…and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”? Paul says the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth in 1 Tim 3:15. It’s not much of a bulwark (defense; safeguard) if it teaches doctrinal error almost from the start.

Kinsman, I respect your need for proof, much as our Lord respected St. Thomas. But recall that He also pronounced a beatitude on those “who have not seen and yet believe”.

My advice and my prayer for you is that you pray to God to lead you into understanding of those things that He wishes you to understand now. Then put the Assumption question on hold for a while and come back to it after some more prayer and study. Go back and really test your beliefs against the Scriptures. Really try to conclusively prove Sola Scriptura to yourself based only on the Bible. Look more closely at what the Bible says about the Church Jesus founded. Did he mean for it to be hidden for hundreds of years? Look at Mt 5:14-16 and the above mentioned verses and reconcile them with a doctrinally corrupt Church for the first 1500 years after Christ.

 

[Kinsman]

PAX:

The “woman” described in Rev 12 is not merely a symbol of Israel or the Church. We know this for several reasons. The first clue is at the end of Rev 11 in verse 19 where it says, “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple…” The Ark of the Covenant is a reference to Mary and it immediately precedes Rev 12:1 that says, “AND A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;”

I appreciate your going through the “thought process” connected with the development of Rome’s Marian doctrines. Although I’m very familiar with it already. And I commend you that at least you admit that these doctrines are not developed from an exegetical study of the Scriptures, but independent of them. They’re based and developed on the opinions of men, required to be accepted and believed simply because to those men it is seemed “reasonable.” But “the faith once delivered to the saints” by the Apostles is not founded on what seems “reasonable” to men - but on what God has “revealed” to men via His inerrant, written Word.

As for the “Ark of the Covenant” being a reference to Mary I cannot agree. The “Ark of the Covenant” is a Biblical term rooted in actual, historical reality. Whereas the idea of Mary being the “Ark of the New Covenant” is a totally extrabiblical concept and Roman Catholic idiom. It is poor hermeneutics indeed to pour into a Biblical text a totally extrabiblical notion. That’s how “Christian” cults are developed.

It’s far better to allow the Ark of the Covenant to remain just what it is - the Ark of the Covenant- which is directly related to national Israel. And a far better interpretation, consistent with what is being revealed in the text, is that the Ark, now appearing in the Temple of God in Heaven (11:19), speaks to the fact that God has not forgotten His covenant promises to national Israel, especially regarding the Kingdom, which He is about to fulfill with the return of Christ to this present earth (Rev. 19:15-16).

As to the identity of the “woman” in Revelation chapter twelve, I flat out reject the interpretation that she represents the Church; for the simple reason that the Church did not produce Christ (the man child to whom she gives birth), but it is Christ who produced the Church. Common sense should tell us this.

The woman cannot represent Mary. Especially not the exalted, sinless Mary of Romanism since the process of her giving birth included the curse of labor pains. It must be duly noted that it is not the woman who is caught up to the throne of God, but the Child (Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). The sign is prophetic. The woman actually flees to an earthly wilderness and is nourished there by God for 1260 days (three and one half years). A direct reference to the prophetic warning Christ gives to Israel in the context of the time of the great Tribulation at the end of this age (Matt. 24:15-29). Obviously no reference to Mary.
Continued…

 

[Kinsman]

The physical description of the woman also makes it very evident that she symbolically represents national Israel. (1) I agree that the term “woman” is an identifier, but not to Mary because twice it is recorded that Jesus called her “woman.” That’s a real stretch! However, Israel is often portrayed as a woman, even a woman in labor with child in the O.T. (Is. 47:7-9; 54:4-6; Jer. 4:31; Mic. 4:9-10; 5:3; Is. 66:7-8). (2) The woman is clothed with the sun, moon and stars. These too are associated with national Israel in the O.T. In Gen. 37:9-11 the sun, moon and stars are employed to represent Jacob and Joseph’s eleven brothers, the progenitors of national Israel. In Jer. 31:35-36 Israel is compared to the fixed order of the sun, moon and stars, where God emphatically states that if you can remove them then Israel will forever cease from being a nation before Him. Well, of course that’s not possible, is it? And for this reason national Israel exists in its ancient homeland today in preparation of the promised, earthly, Messianic Kingdom at Christ’s return. (3) The woman wears a crown of twelve stars. Obviously a direct reference to the twelve tribes of Israel. And the fact that these twelve stars form a “crown” speaks to the idea of government. The Hebrew prophets reveal that Israel, especially the city of Jerusalem, will be the seat of government during Christ’s future, earthly, Messianic reign on earth (Zech. 8:1-8; 13, 19-23; 9:9-10; 14:8-9, 16).

Prophetically and poetically the prophet Isaiah links together the birth of Christ, Israel’s King (Matt. 2:2), her turmoil during the coming Tribulation period in which she flees to the wilderness for 1260 days (Rev. 12:6; Matt. 24: 15-21), and her future, restoration to glory at Christ’s 2nd Advent:

"Before she travailed, she brought forth;
Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy.
Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such a thing?
Can a land be born in one day?
Can a nation be brought forth all at once?" (Is. 66:7-8).
Continued…

 

[Kinsman]

Israel produced her Messiah, but she rejected Him nationally. But Scripture clearly teaches that God will faithfully fulfill his unconditional covenants with that nation. But she must first experience “travail” (the Tribulation, Matt. 24:21; Rev. 12:13-17). And then that nation will be “brought forth all at once” (see Rom. 11:25-29), when her Messiah, the Son of David, return to rule Israel and the nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 19:15-17).

It is no accident that Israel is back as a nation today, and in her ancient homeland. Hitler tried to annihilate the Jews just prior to their return as a nation. Now Satan is using Islam as a dark force to try and destroy her, and eventually Antichrist will try to finish the job. Satan, the "great dragon," the “serpent of old,” who also "deceives the world," knows that without the nation of Israel present in the middle east, Christ can not return and bring an end to his dark career (Rev. 20:1-10). That’s why he is shown as persecuting the woman in Rev. 12:7-17, and why Michael the archangel (Israel’s angelic protector, Dan. 12:1) wages war with the “dragon” at that time. All antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiments are Satanically rooted and in line with antichrist.

Based on the context and description, the woman in Revelation twelve can not be the Church, nor Mary, but in fact must be national Israel. The Church (all true believers) is not mentioned after chapter three in the Book of Revelation. John in chapter four is told, “*Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things,” *i.e., the church age as preveously revealed in chapters two and three. Many Bibe scholars believe that when John is told to “come up here,” he represents the Church (all true believers, the Body of Christ) being taken up to be with the Lord in the Rapture. I am convinced of this myself. And subsequently, God then shifts back to fulfilling His prophetic plan for national Israel as revealed by the Old Testament prophets. This includes the Tribulation period described in Revelation chapters six to nineteen, culminating in the return of Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords, to establish His Millennial reign on earth (Rev. 19:11-20:6). He comes back with His Bride, His Church. A glorious time indeed. He is not coming back to destroy this earth, but to rule it.

By making the woman in Revelation twelve Mary, you totally miss what God has communicated in His Word regarding end times events. That’s tragic, indeed. Also, I don’t disrespect Mary by refuting the claims of her alleged Assumption. It is far more disrespectful to say things about her that aren’t true, even if they’re not negative things.

 

[1962Missal]

Kinsman:

I appreciate your going through the “thought process” connected with the development of Rome’s Marian doctrines. Although I’m very familiar with it already. And I commend you that at least you admit that these doctrines are not developed from an exegetical study of the Scriptures, but independent of them. They’re based and developed on the opinions of men, required to be accepted and believed simply because to those men it is seemed “reasonable.” But “the faith once delivered to the saints” by the Apostles is not founded on what seems “reasonable” to men - but on what God has “revealed” to men via His inerrant, written Word.

If you are so familiar with the process of development of doctrine within the Catholic Church, then why one can only wonder why you continually show how Catholic teaching fails your Sola Scriptura criteria. I’ve already told you, you don’t make the rules here, and it doesn’t sink in.

As for the “Ark of the Covenant” being a reference to Mary I cannot agree. The “Ark of the Covenant” is a Biblical term rooted in actual, historical reality. Whereas the idea of Mary being the “Ark of the New Covenant” is a totally extrabiblical concept and Roman Catholic idiom. It is poor hermeneutics indeed to pour into a Biblical text a totally extrabiblical notion. That’s how “Christian” cults are developed.

You don’t make the rules here, remember? Perhaps a quote from the local rules is necessary:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

The woman cannot represent Mary. Especially not the exalted, sinless Mary of Romanism since the process of her giving birth included the curse of labor pains.

The Church teaches that the consequences of the fall were not only within human nature but also in the loss of preternatural gifts, given to man in his orginal state, over and above what is his by right. If Mary had a sinless nature, that does not mean that she would also have the preternatural gifts…among which is the invulnerability to suffering. Now, since Christ was both sinless and capable of suffering, then we must say that, within His human nature, He did not possess preternatural impassability. Therefore, we reason that Mary, while sinless, could not have had impassability, either. So, whether she suffered or no, it does not follow that, if she was sinless, she could not have suffered.

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

Kinsman:

Based on the context and description, the woman in Revelation twelve can not be the Church, nor Mary, but in fact must be national Israel. The Church (all true believers) is not mentioned after chapter three in the Book of Revelation. John in chapter four is told, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things,” i.e., the church age as preveously revealed in chapters two and three. Many Bibe scholars believe that when John is told to “come up here,” he represents the Church (all true believers, the Body of Christ) being taken up to be with the Lord in the Rapture. I am convinced of this myself. And subsequently, God then shifts back to fulfilling His prophetic plan for national Israel as revealed by the Old Testament prophets. This includes the Tribulation period described in Revelation chapters six to nineteen, culminating in the return of Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords, to establish His Millennial reign on earth (Rev. 19:11-20:6). He comes back with His Bride, His Church. A glorious time indeed. He is not coming back to destroy this earth, but to rule it.

Unless your reader accepts your pre-millennial eschatology, this argument is uselsss. Catholics are amillennial. You skip too many steps. You assume that we accept the truth of your premises far too often when you try to construct an argument. This is one little example; I’m sure if you think about it you can come up with quite a few others.

Justin

 

[Kinsman]

1962Missal:

The Church teaches that the consequences of the fall were not only within human nature but also in the loss of preternatural gifts, given to man in his orginal state, over and above what is his by right. If Mary had a sinless nature, that does not mean that she would also have the preternatural gifts…among which is the invulnerability to suffering. Now, since Christ was both sinless and capable of suffering, then we must say that, within His human nature, He did not possess preternatural impassability. Therefore, we reason that Mary, while sinless, could not have had impassability, either. So, whether she suffered or no, it does not follow that, if she was sinless, she could not have suffered.

The problem is that pain in childbirth is a DIRECT curse put upon women because of Eve’s rebellion. Just as the ground was cursed yielding both thorns and thistles, and by toil we must make a living in this fallen world system.

You can’t get around it my friend, that woman in Rev. 12 CRIED OUT being in labor and in pain. This goes all the way back to Gen. 3 where the curse began because of sin. No, that woman cannot be the exalted, sinless Mary of Romanism. Nor did that woman ascend (assume) into Heaven, but fled into the wilderness for 1260 days. There’s just nothing there that describes Rome’s Mary. In fact, she’s not even mentioned in the Bible after Acts chaper one.

 

[Kinsman]

Defender:

Kinsman,*There is no “proof text” in the Bible that will give you absolute assurance that Mary was assumed into heaven.*There is no point in asking for one, because as you well know, it does not exist.

Thank you!!!

But we cannot give you “proof” on the terms that you demand. You will always hold that trump card,“But you haven’t PROVEN it from the Bible!”

I have never asked that you prove the Assumption of Mary from the Bible. I have stated from the beginning that it’s an extrabiblical story that came on the scene centuries after the alleged occurrence - in stark contrast to the historical death, burial, bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, which was provided with an abundance of eyewitness accounts and rooted in historical accuracy (as well as prophetic). This fourth century story was accompanied with absolutely NO PROOF. Yet Rome has now deemed it an "article of faith." Why? Because its leaders simply like the story, calling it “beautiful?” The early church writers knew nothing of this alleged Assumption. The Apostle John wrote nothing of it, and I’m sure he died long after Mary (of course Rome doesn’t even know if she actually died or not, yet, the original story stated that she, in fact, did die and her body followed up into Heaven two days later). You’d think John would mention such a great event in some writing to the churches…but nope! And yet, the original story stated it was witnessed by the Apostles… go figure!

The Christian faith should not be based on unfounded stories. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is based on eyewitness accounts and prophetic accuracy. God never asked us to put our faith on such kind of stories. That would reduce the Christian faith to mere religions like Islam and Mormonism which are founded on fantastic stories void of any historical facts.

BTW, Jesus never said the Church would be without error. He said “the gates of hell would not prevail against it.” That does not mean it would be error free. Remember the seven churches in Asia Minor in Rev. chapter two and three. He presonally rebuked most of them because of their errors. But He has sovereignly retained the truth of Jesus Christ to this day, inspite of false teachings within the church down through the centuries. The clear, simple Gospel message of Jesus Christ can still be heard. But even Peter warned that within the Church false teachers would rise, just as there were false prophets among the Jews (2 Pet. 2:1). For this reason we’re warned to “test the spirits.”

 

[1962Missal]

Kinsman:

The problem is that pain in childbirth is a DIRECT curse put upon women because of Eve’s rebellion. Just as the ground was cursed yielding both thorns and thistles, and by toil we must make a living in this fallen world system.

You can’t get around it my friend, that woman in Rev. 12 CRIED OUT being in labor and in pain. This goes all the way back to Gen. 3 where the curse began because of sin. No, that woman cannot be the exalted, sinless Mary of Romanism. Nor did that woman ascend (assume) into Heaven, but fled into the wilderness for 1260 days. There’s just nothing there that describes Rome’s Mary. In fact, she’s not even mentioned in the Bible after Acts cheaper one.

Again, I would say that painless childbirth was a gift given to Eve and not part of her essential nature or anything to which she had a claim by right of nature. Once she sinned, that gift was lost. for her and her progeny. Now, if one of her distant daughters (Mary) was made sinless through the extraordinary intervention of God’s grace, that would not mean that the sinless daughter of Eve would be given the preternatural gift of invulnerability to suffering. As, I stated, impassibility is not part of sinless nature, per se, but a gift over and above what one may claim by right of nature. Therefore, Mary would have no claim to the preternatural gifts. If fact, we can say that it would not be fitting for her to possess impassiblity because her Son was not in such manner preserved from suffering.

Justin