Would Mary have aged?

[Butaperson]

So it is stated that Mary was assumed to heaven, body and all, because decay of the body is a result of original sin, which Mary was exempt from.
However, decay of the body does not begin at death. Our bodies begin to slow down and decay as we get older, right? So if Mary is exempt from this process, wouldn’t she have basically stayed eternally young?

Another question. If her body would not decay, then she would not die of natural causes. If she didn’t get sick or run into an accident, theoretically she would not die, right? Because dying of natural causes is one our bodies just run down until everything stops working and we die. So if Mary’s body clock would not run down, then isn’t she theoretically immortal?

My science is pretty bad, but it sounds logical to me, since humans were supposed to be without death or age until the fall of Adam and Eve - and if Mary did not have original sin or any of the consequences of that fall, would she not been the same?

I hope I’m not hearing bad theology. I’m kind of new here.

 

[Trishie]

Mary is human. She grew from an embryonic infant to adulthood which demonstrates her natural humanity, which is a treasure, given that scripture tells us we are made in image and likeness of God. She would not suddenly stop the natural human process.
Decay usually occurs after death, I think most older people might consider themselves aged but not decayed.

Jesus He also grew from a tiny embryo into a adult. He physically endured the injuries of torture and crucifixion. There is nothing ignoble in human development.
His body was not left to decay but rose from the dead.
How exactly God dealt with Mary will be fully understood in heaven, but perhaps can be assumed to be similar to Jesus but in an entirely private way as nothing is mentioned in the gospels, the Acts, or the epistles.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church simply states:

974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

God bless you

And you never need to apologize for your thoughts and questions.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

There is no reason to think that Mary, or in fact Jesus himself, did not age. They were fully human, with the exception of sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So it is stated that Mary was assumed to heaven, body and all, because decay of the body is a result of original sin, which Mary was exempt from.

I know of no such clear teaching. Where do you source it from?

However, decay of the body does not begin at death. Our bodies begin to slow down and decay as we get older, right?

No. Aging is no decaying. Bodily decomposition only starts at death - though leprosy may be moot.

Another question. If her body would not decay, then she would not die of natural causes.

Already answered. Mary aged like everybody else - including Adam and Eve. Obviously the Tree of Life is not available to those banished from Eden - including Mary.

My science is pretty bad, but it sounds logical to me, since humans were supposed to be without death or age until the fall of Adam and Eve

Your understanding of Gensis is a little simplistic, it concentrates on the nature of innocent man without understanding the associated conditions as well. Hence there are different kinds of immortality.

Try searching this website before posting…you will find much material on this topic.
Also, the Catholic Ecyclopedia is good to search as well (Google “New Advent”)

 

[Memaw]

There is no reason to think that Mary, or in fact Jesus himself, did not age. They were fully human, with the exception of sin.

The Church has never taught that Mary actually died. As for whether or not she aged as we do, we will see when we get there, hopefully. God Bless. Memaw.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Church has never taught that Mary actually died. As for whether or not she aged as we do, we will see when we get there, hopefully. God Bless. Memaw.

Memaw this is not quite right.
Yes, the Church has not yet formally and explicitly and without euphemisms taught that Mary died. Neither has the Church clearly and formally taught that she did not die.

But what is very clear is that both tradition (East and West) and informal statements of the Church and Popes is actually quite clear that she did die.

The CCC is clearly using a respectful euphemism as does the Eastern Church from time immemorial (“Dormition”). Now if we think that the Eastern Church means “sleep” when using that word then we would be mistaken. Early Greek Iconography of the Assumption shows Jesus in the clouds above Mary’s supine body (being lifted by angels) with him holding a “little man”. That is quite strange, until we realise that “little man” is actually Mary’s soul. So Mary’s body and soul separated in her “Dormition/Assumption.” That is the very definition of death as the CCC states.

Many Western Catholic laity have got confused on this point in the last few hundred years.
I put it down to the modern Western paintings of the Assumption which show Mary alive and standing erect as she is Assumed into Heaven. This gives the impression that she did not die. Yet such paintings are actually quite recent and do not reflect the far ancient tradition before them.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You are asking if she aged from the ripe old age of about twelve years old when she became pregnant?

 

[Memaw]

Memaw this is not quite right.
Yes, the Church has not yet formally and explicitly and without euphemisms taught that Mary died. Neither has the Church clearly and formally taught that she did not die.

But what is very clear is that both tradition (East and West) and informal statements of the Church and Popes is actually quite clear that she did die.

The CCC is clearly using a respectful euphemism as does the Eastern Church from time immemorial (“Dormition”). Now if we think that the Eastern Church means “sleep” when using that word then we would be mistaken. Early Greek Iconography of the Assumption shows Jesus in the clouds above Mary’s supine body (being lifted by angels) with him holding a “little man”. That is quite strange, until we realise that “little man” is actually Mary’s soul. So Mary’s body and soul separated in her “Dormition/Assumption.” That is the very definition of death as the CCC states.

Many Western Catholic laity have got confused on this point in the last few hundred years.
I put it down to the modern Western paintings of the Assumption which show Mary alive and standing erect as she is Assumed into Heaven. This gives the impression that she did not die. Yet such paintings are actually quite recent and do not reflect the far ancient tradition before them.

We have been thru this before on another thread and some are strong on both sides but still the Church has never ever defined that Mary died or aged either one. So the truth is we just do not know for sure. If God had wanted to make that precious moment available to us , He surely would have. The Church has always said that Mary was Assummed into Heaven, Body and Soul, so no seperation ever took place. Artist virsions are not always that important or accurate. God Blress, Memaw

 

[tonyrey]

Our Blessed Lady certainly suffered and there is no reason to believe her body was exempt from the laws of nature:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[Memaw]

Our Blessed Lady certainly suffered and there is no reason to believe her body was exempt from the laws of nature:

She was exempt from the laws of nature at her Immaculate Conception. Over 30 years ago, when I first started teacing CCD, my holy priest uncle told me to NEVER teach “my opinion,” as I may very well be wrong. But to teach only what the Church actually teaches. I found that to be very wise and helped me thru much of the confusion after Vatican II. In my personal life as well as in the 20 some years I taught. I also belonged to Catholics United for the Faith, The Blue Army, (now World Apostolate of Fatima), and now we have Catholic Answers… God Bless, Memaw

 

[Blue_Horizon]

. The Church has always said that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, Body and Soul

Correct. But this statement says nothing about them being joined at the bottom - only that they were joined at the top

Artist virsions are not always that important or accurate. God Blress, Memaw

Correct, young and recent art works have little authoritative value in the Catholic Church.
If you think the same is true of 5th century iconography then perhaps you have spent little time at a Catholic University or Seminary studying such things.

If God had wanted to make that precious moment available to us , He surely would have.

He has MM, it is just that you need it formally defined before you will personally accept it.

Things only tend to get formally defined (as opposed to personally held by large numbers of the faithful) when there is widespread dispute.

JPII publicly preached that Mary died, as do many other senior theologians and Church officials. I can see that will not convince you either.

 

[Memaw]

Originally Posted by Memaw
. The Church has always said that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, Body and Soul

Blue Horizon said;
Correct. But this statement says nothing about them being joined at the bottom - only that they were joined at the top

Blue H, Where ever did you get that idea. She was complete, body and soul, no seperation at any time. You do have some strange ideas. As for the artists, thats a matter of taste, theirs and mine. God Bless, Memaw.

 

[tonyrey]

She was exempt from the laws of nature at her Immaculate Conception. Over 30 years ago, when I first started teacing CCD, my holy priest uncle told me to NEVER teach “my opinion,” as I may very well be wrong. But to teach only what the Church actually teaches. I found that to be very wise and helped me thru much of the confusion after Vatican II. In my personal life as well as in the 20 some years I taught. I also belonged to Catholics United for the Faith, The Blue Army, (now World Apostolate of Fatima), and now we have Catholic Answers… God Bless, Memaw

Does the Church teach that Our Lady was exempt from the laws of nature at her Immaculate Conception?

God bless you.

 

[Memaw]

Does the Church teach that Our Lady was exempt from the laws of nature at her Immaculate Conception?

God bless you.

She was exempt from the laws of nature as far as dying and seperation of body and soul are concerned. We have no idea if she actually aged or not. Like I said before I will wait and see. What good does it do to carry on with something we do not have an positive answer for. God Bless, Memaw

 

[tonyrey]

She was exempt from the laws of nature as far as dying and seperation of body and soul are concerned. We have no idea if she actually aged or not. Like I said before I will wait and see. What good does it do to carry on with something we do not have an positive answer for. God Bless, Memaw

I agree. God bless.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Memaw
. The Church has always said that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, Body and Soul

Blue Horizon said;
Correct. But this statement says nothing about them being joined at the bottom - only that they were joined at the top

Blue H, Where ever did you get that idea. She was complete, body and soul, no seperation at any time. You do have some strange ideas. As for the artists, thats a matter of taste, theirs and mine. God Bless, Memaw.

Memaw please quote a Magisterial source which clearly agrees with your unique personal assertion “She was complete, body and soul, no seperation at any time”.

If Pope JP II personally taught that Mary died that is good enough for me.
No doubt you think he has strange ideas too ?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Memaw

Blue Horizon said;
Correct. But this statement says nothing about them being joined at the bottom - only that they were joined at the top

Blue H, Where ever did you get that idea. You do have some strange ideas. As for the artists, thats a matter of taste, theirs and mine. God Bless, Memaw.

BTW here is that other guy who gave me the strange idea you speak of. His name is Pope JPII. Funny how he states that the strange idea that you tout above only started with those erroneous modern western paintings of the Assumption that I spoke of - the seventeenth century.

I know you won’t accept these stark facts until a Pope formally defines it … I write only for other readers here with a rational, open mind.

*"Mary and the human drama of death:
Concerning the end of Mary’s earthly life, the Council uses the terms of the Bull defining the dogma of the Assumption and states: “The Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over” (Lumen gentium, n. 59). With this formula, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, following my Venerable Predecessor Pius XII, made no pronouncement on the question of Mary’s death. Nevertheless, Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers.

Some theologians have in fact maintained that the Blessed Virgin did not die and and was immediately raised from earthly life to heavenly glory. However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory. "* JPII, 1997.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Memaw

She was exempt from the laws of nature as far as dying and seperation of body and soul are concerned. We have no idea if she actually aged or not. Like I said before I will wait and see. What good does it do to carry on with something we do not have an positive answer for. God Bless, Memaw
I agree. God bless.

Tony I don’t like to see people being unjustifiably confirmed in their own biases when they are open enough to check their biases out as you sincerely do.

Actually, Pope JPII explicitly set out to correctly answer the very question you asked:
*" It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation.

The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. " *JPII 1997.
[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Tony I don’t like to see people being unjustifiably confirmed in their own biases when they are open enough to check their biases out as you sincerely do.

Actually, Pope JPII explicitly set out to correctly answer the very question you asked:
*" It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation.

The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. " *JPII 1997.

I agreed that it is pointless “to carry on with something we do not have an positive answer for”, but I had already pointed out in a previous post that Our Blessed Lady certainly suffered and there is no reason to believe her body was exempt from the laws of nature.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

TR: Does the Church teach that Our Lady was exempt from the laws of nature at her Immaculate Conception?

Sorry about that. I thought you were agreeing with MeMaw that “She was exempt from the laws of nature as far as dying and seperation of body and soul are concerned…”

If I may politely observe wrt “I agreed that it is pointless to carry on with something we do not have an positive answer for.”
We actually do have a positive answer to your above question in JP II’s personal clarification of the formal Dogma of the Assumption defined by Pius XII.

JP II clearly believes the question is settled and was unanimously so up until C17 and subsequent confusions make no difference. So why didn’t Pius XII make it clear that Mary aged and died like everybody else in his formal teaching?

JP II is also very clear on that point also.
He says that the only reason that Pius XII used ambiguous language in this area is because “he did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers.”

In other words, the teaching is very clear. But due to significant numbers of the faithful piously holding the contrary he did not think it pastorally helpful to correct their sincere misunderstanding with a binding formal definition at that time.

In other words, better Catechesis of the faithful should be done before formally defining this teaching in the future. We are being advised that at the present time Catholics may validly hold to this pious but abberant position that Mary did not age or die. However, unless we have very strong/sincere personal views on the matter, it is clear what the Pope’s are asking us to accept and pass on to others.

That is what I am attempting to do here with MeMaw.
As MeMae is a Catechist I hope Pope JP’s words find fertile soil in her heart so that this sincere misunderstanding does not keep being perpetuated in the Church.