The Dormition means Original Innocence still leads to bodily death?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TK421

Guest
According to Keating, there is pretty much a consensus in Tradition that Mary did die a natural death, and then her body was assumed into Heaven. Does this mean that Mary, even though she was preserved with Original Innocence, died a natural death? Would Adam & Eve have died a natural death even without their fall?
 
According to Keating, there is pretty much a consensus in Tradition that Mary did die a natural death, and then her body was assumed into Heaven. Does this mean that Mary, even though she was preserved with Original Innocence, died a natural death? Would Adam & Eve have died a natural death even without their fall?
Personally I think that Adam & Eve were immortal not only due to their nature, but also due to living in Eden, which was free from decay of the World. Virgin Mary lived in the World, moreover, she experienced severe suffering at the sight of her Son’s sufferings. That’s why she did not always stay young and healthy by her own nature.
 
I believe Catholics are free to accept a variety of opinions on this point. Some believe that Our Lady was not subject to natural death, but allowed herself to die in order to be perfectly conformed to Her Son’s death and resurrection. Why should the Mother of God be deprived a share in the glory of the resurrection?
 
I believe Catholics are free to accept a variety of opinions on this point. Some believe that Our Lady was not subject to natural death, but allowed herself to die in order to be perfectly conformed to Her Son’s death and resurrection. Why should the Mother of God be deprived a share in the glory of the resurrection?
Well, should we suppose then that St. Mary was never sick and didn’t cry when she was born? :confused:
 
According to Keating, there is pretty much a consensus in Tradition that Mary did die a natural death, and then her body was assumed into Heaven. Does this mean that Mary, even though she was preserved with Original Innocence, died a natural death? Would Adam & Eve have died a natural death even without their fall?
Interesting question. It seems, though, that Mary’s “death” was different from other deaths. There is a reason why it’s called the “Dormition” of Mary instead of the “Death” of Mary, after all. The name seems to imply that instead of normal death (in which our souls are violently separated from our bodies), her soul remained with her body as her body remained in a coma-like sleep that merely resembled death. And that even though she was free of original sin, this was necessary due to the world being corrupted by original sin. Before the fall, God had designed to world and the universe to last forever. Other species could die (and become extinct), as they did, but simply because the entirety of creation up to the onset of humankind had been done to prepare the world for humanity’s existence. As such, since the Earth and universe had been originally created to last forever, Adam and Eve (and us, their offspring) would have been able to live forever in the non-corrupted world. But when they fell, the world and universe also became corrupted.

In order for Mary to live forever (as was her destiny, having been conceived without sin - a requirement for her to be the Theotokos, the human mother of God the Son), she had to go into a sleep that resembled death and have her body disappear from the world. Seriously - around the time that St. John the apostle was going to bury her in Ephesus, her body had disappeared - and was never found. The conclusion for all the faithful was that Jesus must have brought his human mother into Heaven with Him. Though the assumption was not declared as infallible teaching until Pope Pius XII declared it ex cathedra in the 1930s, it has been popular belief since the end of the 1st century.
 
Before the fall, God had designed to world and the universe to last forever.
Are You sure about this point? :hmmm:

I tend to think that Incarnation and Second Coming were planned from the very Beginning. Because the Fall was expectable from human beings, not yet able to use their freedom of will properly.
 
Are You sure about this point? :hmmm:

I tend to think that Incarnation and Second Coming were planned from the very Beginning. Because the Fall was expectable from human beings, not yet able to use their freedom of will properly.
God’s Will and God’s Omniscience are not one and the same. To believe so would be to believe that nothing happens that is not God’s Will. God willed the immortality of the human race (and the world), but knew that humans would rebel against Him. God wills that all will live with Him forever in Heaven, but knows that some will reject Him and His Will and end up eternally damned.
 
Are You sure about this point? :hmmm:

I tend to think that Incarnation and Second Coming were planned from the very Beginning. Because the Fall was expectable from human beings, not yet able to use their freedom of will properly.
I tend to believe that Our Blessed Lord God had the plan of the Coming of Jesus from before all times, but obviously did not ned to do it until the sin of Adam and Eve were perpetrated (which was always possible due to God’s gift to humans of free will).

May God bless you all abundantly and forever! 🙂
 
I tend to believe that Our Blessed Lord God had the plan of the Coming of Jesus from before all times, but obviously did not ned to do it until the sin of Adam and Eve were perpetrated (which was always possible due to God’s gift to humans of free will).

May God bless you all abundantly and forever! 🙂
I agree.

I should also add that, I think, New Life and Kingdom of God are radically different from the State of Original Innocence. They are something much bigger and better. That’s why I believe Incarnation and Last Times were planned in advance.
 
God’s Will and God’s Omniscience are not one and the same. To believe so would be to believe that nothing happens that is not God’s Will. God willed the immortality of the human race (and the world), but knew that humans would rebel against Him. God wills that all will live with Him forever in Heaven, but knows that some will reject Him and His Will and end up eternally damned.
But living in Heaven with God is obviously much bigger and better than original Innocence. That’s why it is expedient to think, Kingdom of God was not only predicted, but planned in advance.
 
Interesting question. It seems, though, that Mary’s “death” was different from other deaths. There is a reason why it’s called the “Dormition” of Mary instead of the “Death” of Mary, after all.
The Dormition simply means “falling asleep”, which is the term that Eastern Christians, to this day, use for the death of a Christian.
 
But living in Heaven with God is obviously much bigger and better than original Innocence. That’s why it is expedient to think, Kingdom of God was not only predicted, but planned in advance.
I think (though I don’t remember well enough to be certain) that several doctors of the Church (I’m thinking St. Augustine in City of God, in particular) suggested something about how Adam and Eve, without dying, would not have stayed in the perfect natural state forever, but at some point would have gained the beatific vision (if they’d passes the “test” of the fruit… Like the angels who did not fall).
So, that would answer your argument.
Of course, Christ wouldn’t have been incarnate, and that glory would be missing (thus Adam’s fault being “happy”).
As to the original question, does anyone have information about the “official” import of the Immaculate Conception? Whether Our Lady was free from ALL the effects of sin on human nature, or whether she only didn’t have the culpability and dessert of punishment that come with original sin (it’s effect on the will) is important.
If she was free from original sin in the second way, it might be possible that she still suffered the consequences merely on a bodily level (able to feel pain and hunger, for example). I’m actually not sure about this, it’s a hole in my theological knowledge.
 
Is it actually at all official teaching that Adam & Eve were these superheroes that were impervious to age prior to the first human sin, or is this just something certain Catholics assume? The effects of original sin I thought were concupiscence and a wounded nature (i.e. mental & spiritual disorders, disease, etc.), not that they lost an alleged Superman status. The New Adam & Eve possessed the features of man prior to the Fall, and they seemed to have aged like normal human beings, and from the information in the Gospels, they were perfectly susceptible to pain & physical death, as well as fatigue and the need to rest and sleep. If this weren’t so, then Christ could never have been crucified. They seemed identical to historical man in every way, except in sin. Adam himself was sleeping when God created Eve, which suggests he needed to recuperate and such. Man was “good” prior to the Fall, but his body was in no way indestructible or inexhaustible (as the glorified heavenly body will be).

We know for a fact that regardless of sin or no sin, it was the ultimate destiny of man to be united with God in the Beatific Vision. Eden was never meant to be a permanent state, nor the total fulfillment for man. They were put there, with the full knowledge that they would be tested by Satan.
 
The Dormition just refers to death. My understanding - correct me if I am mistaken - is that Eastern Christians aren’t as precise in their terminology as the Latin Church, which suffered the brunt of assaults from heresies over the centuries, other than with early Arianism, whose home base was in the Eastern Roman Empire. The western CC has needed to articulate itself very carefully because of these assaults. “The Assumption” is used as a distinction from the Ascension of Christ, because at the Ascension of Christ, he rose into Heaven by his own power. The Dormition and Assumption refer to the same event.
 
I believe that part of why the Church does not teach whether or not Our Lady died a natural death is precisely because there is not a consensus in Church teaching.
 
This is an interesting topic because at the Assumption Mass I attended, the Priest made his homily around it. I had never thought deeply about Mary’s death before or realised there was any debate about it. This Priest expressed the view that the Immaculate conception should never have been proclaimed dogma by Pope Pius XII and that it was an over reach on his part.

When I mentioned it to my Mum, she said that she had been taught that St Anthony was instructed by God to tell Pius XII that the decision to dogmatise the Immaculate Conception was right.

I had known that Thomas Aquinas wasn’t on board with this elevation of Our Lady but that he had died prior to the final decision at the young age of 49.

On Saturday Fr. said that we should rightly be celebrating the Dormition of Mary rather than the Immaculate Conception and Assumption… and he was quite passionate about that.
 
The Dormition just refers to death.
Quite correct. The Greek word for Dormition is κοίμησις, which has the same root as the word κοιμητήριον (borrowed into Latin as coemeterium), a word which readers might recognize by its its Modern English descendant ‘cemetery’. In patristic Greek, the word κοίμησις is much more commonly used for its figurative meaning of “falling alseep in death” (and not uniquely in reference to the Virgin Mary either), rather than its more literal meaning of simply ‘falling asleep’, and accordingly the word κοιμητήριον came more commonly to signify a burial place—a place where people sleep in death—rather than place where people literally just sleep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top