What caused Mary to die?

[Tis_Bearself]

Wouldn’t it make sense to revise the propers then to reflect correct Catholic Mariology? Why retain propers that contradict dogma?

As has been explained several times above, they don’t “contradict dogma”.

There is NO “dogma” in the Catholic Church regarding whether Mary died or not before her Assumption. None. Zip zilch nada.

Mary dying or not dying is not part of the dogma. Pope Pius XII left that out.

 

[Anesti33]

Except for the ancient liturgical catechesis and the Church Fathers and the Ordinary Magisterium, yeah, I guess we got nothin’.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Since VII, Rome has encouraged the restoration and de-Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches (e.g. Orientalium Ecclesiarium). They probably don’t want to interfere because if they did, the Orthodox hierarchy would be in consternation. Remember what happened after Summorum Pontificum. Benedict XVI changed the Good Friday prayer under pressure and the Orthodox hierarchy were aghast. My late aunt, a VERY devout Russian Orthodox, banged the table and said: “He had no right to do that!”

Personally, I think he set back any real ecumenical progress by doing that. It also made the SSPX even more wary of the outstretched hand of Rome.

Think of it this way: Benedict XVI was between Scylla of the Orthodox, the SSPX and other TC communities on one side and the Charybdis of mainstream media et alia on the other, defending and opposing one prayer said on one day of the traditional Latin liturgical year. No matter what he did, no one would be happy.

So if a major fiasco was made over one prayer, what would happen if the propers of a major Holy Day of Obligation were changed? I can’t even fathom it.

 

[Isaac14]

So if a major fiasco was made over one prayer, what would happen if the propers of a major Holy Day of Obligation were changed? I can’t even fathom it.

You stated quite definitively above: “She had no original sin, therefore she could not die.” If this is the case, I think its a cop out to say keeping the Orthodox happy is the reason the propers aren’t corrected. Of course, others here also state (quite convincingly) that Mary’s dying or not dying is not dogma, and don’t assert anything that would contradict the Eastern understanding of the feast.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Except for the ancient liturgical catechesis and the Church Fathers and the Ordinary Magisterium, yeah, I guess we got nothin’.

It’s still not dogma. As shown by all the sources already posted in the thread.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

Except for the ancient liturgical catechesis and the Church Fathers and the Ordinary Magisterium, yeah, I guess we got nothin’.

It’s still not dogma. As shown by all the sources already posted in the thread.

How would you define the word “dogma”?

What would you term the position “Mary died”: “doctrine”, “teaching”, “opinion”, “fallible”, “other”?

 

[Montrose]

How would you define the word “dogma”?

What would you term the position “Mary died”: “doctrine”, “teaching”, “opinion”, “fallible”, “other”?

It is neither an infallible nor non-infallible teaching of the Church.
The Church does not teach Mary died.
The Church does not teach Mary did not die.

Catholics are free to believe either.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

How would you define the word “dogma”?

What would you term the position “Mary died”: “doctrine”, “teaching”, “opinion”, “fallible”, “other”?

It is neither an infallible nor non-infallible teaching of the Church.
The Church does not teach Mary died.
The Church does not teach Mary did not die.

Catholics are free to believe either.

So, without evidence, you refute Father Hugh of Catholic Answers, who has stated:
Catholic Answers:

Yes, it is the common teaching in the ordinary Magisterium of the Church and in its liturgical worship that Our Lady underwent bodily death. This is the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers of the Church in the context of their teaching on her Assumption. The fact that the Venerable Pius XII did not define that Our Lady died when he defined her bodily Assumption has been taken by many to mean that she did not die; but in the very bull of definition itself he brings forth the teaching of the Fathers that she died, was resurrected, and then assumed into heaven.

 

[Montrose]

So, without evidence, you refute Father Hugh of Catholic Answers, who has stated:

What do you mean without evidence? Show me Church doctrine that we are obliged to believe that Mary died before being assumed into Heaven. So far you have not.

The mention in the Assumption document about certain Church fathers mentioning Mary and death is not a teaching.

In MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS this is the only dogmatic pronunciation in the document:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

 

[Anesti33]

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
Munificentissimus Deus:

1. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”(11)
2. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.
3. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions.

we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

(emphasis is mine)

 

[Montrose]

Read my post above yours. What you have highlighted is not a teaching. It’s interesting information about the opinions of some church fathers.

 

[Anesti33]

What would be your reaction if I told you that my grandmother has completed the course of her earthly life?

 

[EloyCraft]

Her earthly life was fulfilled. Maybe she was ready to be translated into her eternal life but to be more united to her Son she chose to die of supernatural causes and be resurrected.

 

[Montrose]

What would be your reaction if I told you that my grandmother has completed the course of her earthly life?

Personally, I believe Mary died first. However, I am free to believe otherwise if I wish because the Church does NOT teach she died or did not die. That is why I respect and have no issue with anyone believing she did not die first.

 

[godisgood77]

I believe that Mary died of old age … the belief that she died is a well established tradition; particularly in the Eastern Catholic tradition… in fact, the feast of the dormition is great evidence of this.

 

[Anesti33]

4) Does the dogma require us to believe that Mary died?

It is the common teaching that Mary did die. In his work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , Ludwig Ott lists this teaching as sententia communior (Latin, “the more common opinion”).

So there you have it: it is both a “teaching” and an “opinion”. It is not dogmatically defined; I think we can all agree on that.

The Assumption of Mary: 12 Things to Know and Share

Aug. 15 is the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Here are 12 things to know and share...

www.ncregister.com

 

[Montrose]

We are NOT REQUIRED to believe Mary died. We may believe it or not.

 

[Anesti33]

We are NOT REQUIRED to believe Mary died. We may believe it or not.

Indeed; that’s why the teaching is also called an “opinion”.

What I’d like from the “not deaders” is the concession that it is a teaching–you seem allergic to this word as if it will bite you. It is not dangerous to admit that it is a teaching, because a parallel opinion is also “taught” that she did not die, and is held by a wide range of Mariologists to this day.

This may be like the opinion of “Limbo” in that once it gained traction, it was difficult to refute, but the Church has attempted to jettison it for decades now.

Since opposing viewpoints are so widely held, I can see why His Holiness was reluctant to dogmatically define it, because he would effectively make the other side guilty of heresy for no good reason. That’s a fair point. Brick by brick.

 

[Montrose]

Indeed; that’s why the teaching is also called an “opinion”.

What I’d like from the “not deaders” is the concession that it is a teaching–you seem allergic to this word as if it will bite you. It is not dangerous to admit that it is a teaching, because a parallel opinion is also “taught” that she did not die, and is held by a wide range of Mariologists to this day.

This may be like the opinion of “Limbo” in that once it gained traction, it was difficult to refute, but the Church has attempted to jettison it for decades now.

Since opposing viewpoints are so widely held, I can see why His Holiness was reluctant to dogmatically define it, because he would effectively make the other side guilty of heresy for no good reason. That’s a fair point. Brick by brick.

It’s not a teaching.
By the way, Limbo for Infants was NEVER a teaching of the Church. It was only ever a theological hypothesis.

 

[Anesti33]

It’s not a teaching.
By the way, Limbo for Infants was NEVER a teaching of the Church. It was only ever a theological hypothesis.

Limbo is also a teaching in the category of “opinion”:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo , understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

1. On the one hand, these Greek Fathers teach that children who die without Baptism do not suffer eternal damnation, though they do not attain the same state as those who have been baptised.
2. But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine’s “mildest punishment” as the privation of the beatific vision ( carentia visionis Dei ), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties.[45] This teaching, which modified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the privation of the vision of God.[46]

Are you gonna deny again with zero evidence? Just the automatic gainsay of whatever I post?