Monday, February 27, 2023

Did The Blessed Virgin Mary Die?

 

On the Feast of All Saints, November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus which defined ex cathedra the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary in the following words:

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. (para. #44; Emphasis mine). 

The Apostolic Constitution, wherein the dogmatic definition is contained, was principally drafted by theologian Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, who in 1981 would receive episcopal consecration from Archbishop Peter Thuc as a Traditionalist Bishop. Des Lauriers would also formulate the sedeprivationist theory to explain the state of the Vacancy after the death of Pope Pius XII. When the eminent theologian presented the final draft to His Holiness for approval, the pope told him to change one part of the definition, which he did dutifully. The pope then approved it as above. The original, uncorrected version is below:

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 died, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. (Emphasis mine). 

The difference should be obvious. After having received the final draft, Pope Pius was conferring with several prominent theologians, and some of them urged him to remove the death of the Blessed Mother from the definition. After prayerful consideration, the pope agreed, and had theologian des Lauriers make the change from Mary "having died," to "having completed the course of her earthly life." The significance of the change cannot be understated. There are theologians who believe (like my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD) that the Blessed Virgin Mary never experienced death. Rather, when her mission on earth was over, God had her Assumed into Heaven by angels, and she was given a glorified body. 

The majority of theologians held Mary had indeed died, but prior to the first moment of bodily corruption setting in, she was resurrected with a glorified body and Assumed, by the Almighty Power of God, into Heaven. By removing "having died" from the text of the definition, Pope Pius XII made clear that he was not settling the theological controversy. A Traditionalist Catholic is therefore free to hold either opinion. In this post, I will set forth the arguments of both sides. I have taken the opinions of some of the greatest approved theologians' Mariology, including Scheeben, Carol, Pohle, Mare, Everett and Neubert in the composition of this post. I have included the notes I took from Fr. DePauw, an approved canonist pre-Vatican II. This post is my compilation of their writings. 

I (like Fr. DePauw) hold the minority view that Mary never died. Of course, you are free to disagree, and I submit all I write to the judgement of Holy Mother Church should the papacy be restored; humbly accepting Her decisions. 

The Death of Mary Thesis

Without a doubt, the thesis that Mary died like all the other children of Adam, is the majority opinion among the theologians and carries much theological weight. Prior to the dogma of the Assumption, a great many theologians classified the death of Mary as "proximately definable." The theological arguments for this thesis can be grouped under five (5) headings: (a) the Magisterium; (b) the liturgy; (c) the Holy Bible; (d) Sacred Tradition; and (e) theological reasoning. Each will be examined.

The Magisterium

There are no papal decrees that pronounce for or against the death of Mary. However, Pope Clement V (d. 1314), wrote in a sermon: "It must be held firmly she (Mary) really and truly rose again." The pope therefore presupposes death in order for her to rise again. In a 1933 address, Pope Pius XI stated that the grace Our Lady received at the time of Her Immaculate Conception was "...a grace of Redemption which did not confer on her a true and proper immortality." 

The Liturgy

It is well known that the liturgy, which reflects the mind of the Magisterium in doctrinal matters, contains repeated allusions to the specific manner in which Our Lady departed this life. Two are of special significance: the famous Collect Veneranda was composed on the initiative of Pope Sergius I (d. 701), and to be recited at the beginning of a procession held in connection with the Feast of the Dormition ("falling asleep") of Mary reads, Veneranda nobis, Domine, huius diei festivitas opem conferat salutarem, in qua sancta Dei Genetrix mortem subiit temporalem, nec tamen mortis nexibus deprimi potuit, quae Filium tuum Dominum nostrum de se genuit incarnatum:  Qui tecum vivit et regnat... which translates as  May this hallowed feast shower us with saving grace, O Lord; since today the mother of God underwent the death of the body yet could not be held in death-bonds, as having brought forth Your incarnate Son, Our Lord; Who lives and reigns...(Emphasis mine). 

Likewise, the prayer Subveniat, was part of the Mass (Collect) for the Feast of the Assumption until 1950, reads as follows:

Subveniat, Domine, plebi tuae Dei Genitricis oratio: quam etsi pro conditione carnis migrasse cognoscimus, in caelesti gloria apud te pro nobis intercedere sentiamus.

Translation: May the prayer of the Mother of God assist Thy people, O Lord: although we know that she passed according to the condition of the flesh, may we nevertheless feel her interceding for us in heavenly glory. (Emphasis mine). 

The liturgy cannot give error or evil, so Mary died.

The Holy Bible

The Bible makes no explicit mention of Mary's final fate on this Earth. Genesis 3:15 may be said to contain a veiled reference to her death: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. The solemn words which God addressed to the serpent in the Garden of Eden foretold Our Lady's intimate share in the redemptive mission of her Son. Since this mission, in the present economy, calls for the death of the Redeemer as a means of destroying the power of Satan, we might conclude that the Redeemer's partner should likewise die in order to achieve a greater conformity with Him in His triumph. 

Sacred Tradition

Many Church Fathers taught the death of Mary, such as Origen (when Catholic), St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine, among others. 

Theological Reasoning

All theologians who hold this thesis agree that Mary's death was not due to her having contracted Original Sin. Such is incompatible with the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and even prior to the 1854 definition, it was condemned in 1567 by Pope St. Pius V: No one except Christ is free from Original Sin; hence, the Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted from Adam, and all of her afflictions in this life as well as those of other just persons were the punishments for actual sin, or for Original Sin. CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #73 of the Errors of Michael du Bay.

However, while true that Mary was immune from Original Sin, this was due to a special privilege which did not carry with it the preternatural gifts conferred on Adam before his sin, such as impassibility and immortality. Our Lady lacked immortality not because she "lost" it in Adam, but rather because God decreed she would have a human body (which is intrinsically mortal, regardless of sin) so that she might share the lot of her Son, the Redeemer. Since Our Lady was Co-Redemptrix, she was united to the Redeemer by an indissoluble bond. Therefore, it seems natural that she, too, should offer the supreme sacrifice of her life to the same end and to obtain the same effects, although on a different plane. 

The Immortality of Mary Thesis

The Magisterium

In the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII purposely rejected defining the death of Mary, even when such was in the final draft given him. Had the previous opinions of Pope Clement V and Pope Pius XI been definitive teaching, he would not have changed the definition so as to remove defining Our Lady's purported death. Two further points:

  • Pope Pius XII not only did not define Mary's death, but whenever he mentions it in the Apostolic Constitution, he is referring to someone else's views, not his own
  • In the Apostolic Constitution, the pope stresses the fact that, since Mary was conceived without Original Sin, she was not subject to the law of corruption  
Moreover, when Pius XI said that the Immaculate Conception was "...a grace of Redemption which did not confer on her a true and proper immortality," it was true insofar as Mary's human nature was not by nature (true and proper) immortal, as was the case with human nature elevated in Original Justice, but God could give such as a gift for cause (and as a reward for her super-meritorious life). 

The Liturgy

The Feast was of the Dormition (i.e., "falling asleep") of the Blessed Virgin Mary; "sleep" not necessarily meaning "death." The Dormition of Mary has been likened by several theologians to the sleep of Adam in the Garden of Eden when God formed Eve from one of his ribs. This, obviously, was not a true death. More than a few theologians teach that a procession is not truly a liturgical function, so the Veneranda holds no weight; it was an opinion. The prayer Subveniat has the phrase "passed according to the condition of the flesh," not "death," because all flesh must "pass out" of this world, yet not necessarily by death. 

In the new Mass of the Assumption, issued simultaneously with the Apostolic Constitution (11/1/1950), Pope Pius XII substitutes a new Subveniat for the old one. This prayer specifically makes no mention of Mary's death. Therefore, it shows the mind of the Pontiff that the old prayer was not speaking about physical death. Moreover, this change in wording was purposely introduced by the pope. 

The Holy Bible

It is clear from Sacred Scripture that, in the present order of things, death is the penal consequence of Original Sin personally contracted by each human being. (Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die; Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned). Since Our Lady was free from the stain of Original Sin, so too she should be free from death. Proponents of the Death of Mary Thesis will agree, yet they state that doesn't prevent God from permitting Mary's death from an altogether different reason not connected to Original Sin. 

While their assertion is true, the burden of proof is on those theologians to prove what the reason is and why it is greater than preserving Our Lady from death. St. Paul writes:

Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.  For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality (1 Cor 15:51-53). It is an opinion of many theologians that those living at the time of the Second Coming of Christ shall not die. (See theologian Sagues, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB, [1956], pgs. 290-293). The Nicene Creed states that Christ shall come again in glory to judge both the living and the dead. If this can be held tenable for sinners, then shouldn't it be held certain for She who is Immaculate? 

Sacred Tradition

In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.

The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary's life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, the ancient Salamina, in the isle of Cyprus. Born in Palestine, we may assume that he was well aware of the traditions there. Yet we find these words in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of remedies for all heresies), written in circa 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."

All the great Scholastics of the thirteenth century taught that Mary died. The principal reason for their so teaching was obviously the fact that they denied the Immaculate Conception in the sense in which it was defined by Pope Pius IX. Thus we read in the writings of St. Bonaventure: "If the Blessed Virgin was free from Original Sin, she was also exempt from the necessity of dying; therefore, either her death was an injustice or she died for the salvation of the human race. But the former supposition is blasphemous, implying that God is not just; and the latter, too, is a blasphemy against Christ for it implies that His Redemption is insufficient. Both are therefore erroneous and impossible. Therefore Our Blessed Lady was subject to Original Sin." St. Bonaventure was not a heretic because the Immaculate Conception was a subject open to theological debate at that time in history. 

The converse of what St. Bonaventure wrote must therefore be true, "If the Blessed Virgin was free from Original Sin, she was also exempt from the necessity of dying; therefore, either her death was an injustice or she died for the salvation of the human race. But the former supposition is blasphemous, implying that God is not just; and the latter, too, is a blasphemy against Christ for it implies that His Redemption is insufficient. Both are therefore erroneous and impossible. Therefore Our Blessed Lady did not die for she was not subject to original sin." The erroneous idea that Mary had contracted Original Sin was also the cause of some of the Fathers to declare she died. St. Augustine wrote that Our Lady died "on account of Adam's sin." He was obviously wrong. 

Theological Reasoning

The Second Council of Orange is quite explicit in its teaching that those who hold that the penalty of death (reatus poenae) is transmitted to the body without the transmission of sin or the death of the soul (reatus culpae) to all the children of Adam, do an injustice to God. Hence, where there is no sin there can be no obligatory death of the body in a child of Adam. Therefore, it would appear that if  the death of Mary is to be defended, there must be another reason, one wherein the acceptance of death by Mary would be a voluntary act. Theologians see this in Mary's role of Co-Redemptrix of the human race as stated in the Thesis of Mary's death above. 

Due to the teaching of the Second Council of Orange, many theologians who maintain that Mary died claim that she had a right to immortality but, like her Son, freely accepted death in order that she might Co-Redeem the human race together with Him. Yet the objection is raised against this opinion that Mary should then have died on Calvary with Christ. For, with the death and resurrection of Christ the Redemption was completed in actu primo (in the primary act) and, consequently, the Co-Redemption. This, too, goes counter to the traditionally accepted belief that Mary Co-Redeemed us by a spiritual compassion, suffering in her soul the agony Christ suffered for us in His Body. Hence, it is not necessary that Mary needs to die for her to be called Co-Redemptrix. 

As theologian Mare writes, “Death with all it signifies for a simple human creature could not possibly avoid involving some character of disgrace and forfeiture, incompatible with her Immaculate Conception and her Divine Maternity.”

Conclusion

Whether or not Mary died prior to her Assumption is an open theological question. Along with Fr. DePauw, I believe she did not.  Christ's Resurrection and Mary's Assumption remind us that death never has the final say. During this time of Lent meditate on death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell. Think often on the Passion of Christ and the Sorrows of Mary. If we are faithful in serving them, we too, can hope for an eternity of happiness when we leave this "valley of tears." 

31 comments:

  1. Great post, Introibo ! It's an interesting question and we can discuss it freely, as long as we don't have a real Pope to decide definitively. During this Lent, I recite a dozen of the rosary every day as a penance. Happy Lent everyone !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      Have a holy Lent, my friend! It is worthwhile for us to look at theological questions, like this one, which remind us of certain truths--like the special place of Our Lady and our final destiny.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. When I meditate on the Ascension, I visualize Our Lord going up to Heaven, but facing the Apostles on earth as he ascends; when I meditate on the Assumption, I visualize Our Lady with her back to the earth as she is being escorted by the angels, who form a row on both sides of her, to Heaven.

    But, that's just me using my imagination as I pray.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,
      Using the imagination to think upon the things of God, is to meditate well ! Have a holy Lenten season, my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. I am of the opinion that Our Lady did die, but voluntarily, as if She were going to sleep; and was perfectly preserved as if time had stopped. So perhaps it is not a 'death' as such, but simply an end to Her earthly sojourn.

    Interesting that Pius XII made that alteration. Did not know that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. cashir_stjoseph,
      To the best of my knowledge and belief, it was the only time that a pope (in recent times) had a dogmatic definition drawn up and changed it after reflection. It is very intriguing and shows the Holy Ghost at work.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Introibo:Have you read the book-Bread of Life by Father Feeney?Shame he did not accept BOD and BOB.What is the book like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:19
      It is rife with heresy and strange theology. Don't waste your eyesight. For an idea of what it contains, please see my post:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-strange-ideas-of-fr-leonard-feeney.html

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Great writing as always.Much food for thought.

    Thank you always Introibo.A grace-filled Lent.

    K
    NZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. K,
      A grace-filled and holy Lenten season to you also, my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. A very thought provoking and well written article. Even though it may be a mystery as to how she went to heaven (died or without death), both points of view are beautiful and I think it's a sobering thought that Catholics in a loving manner can actually disagree with one another and have the freedom to believe either or.

    I tend to believe that she died voluntarily in imitation and out her extreme humility for her divine Son.

    Although one point I would like to make in favor of the minority opinion (not sure if this was mentioned) was the fact if Enoch and the prophet Elias were taken to heaven body and soul why not Our Lady?

    Blessed be her glorious assumption.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      You bring up a very interesting point ! I asked Fr DePauw about Enoch and Elias and he said the argument would fail for two reasons:
      (1) Enoch and Elias were suspended from the law of death, and their current state is unknown. They are doing well but do not enjoy the Beatific Vision, nor do they have glorified bodies.

      (2) They are destined to return during the reign of Antichrist, and the overwhelming majority of theologians teach they will THEN DIE MARTYRS before being resurrected with glorified bodies. (Father agreed with this as well).

      Therefore, Enoch and Elias could not be used as an argument for the Immortality of Mary Thesis.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Enoch and Elias were possibly going to be the Two Witnesses of Apoc. Ch. 11. I am of the opinion that Apoc. Ch. 11 cannot be fulfilled since it is a different "timeline" from Apoc. Ch. 13 which is going to be fulfilled. And nyway their dignity as great as they may be cannot possibly compare to Our Lady.

      Delete
  7. My last comment was made as "anonymous" and I was naive enough to not notice it until afterwards. Well anyway Enoch and Eli have not role in our times

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. cairsahr_stjoseph,
      You may well be right!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. I always find it fascinating when the highest authority has to settle and issue, and right there is another issue, and they won't touch it. I notice this with the supreme courts of the states and US. They will talk all about the separate issue, as if it is part of the case, but then won't declare it. I am like, why not. Pius XII could have, it was only a few words. But just chose not to.

    What Justice said, " We are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ozson,
      That was Associate Justice Robert Jackson. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, many times they want to "punt" so as not to stir-up controversy. Notice the wonderful Dobbs decision, while reversing Roe was careful to explicitly state that the majority holding could not be applied to a finding against, e.g. same sex "marriage." That would provoke the forces of satan even more--all at one time.

      As to Pope Pius, he was lead by the Holy Ghost to refrain from defining Mary's death (or immortality). God's ways are not ours!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Thank you, Intro.

    This is a different and interesting meditation for Lent, I think.

    I read in "The Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics", compiled by Raphael Brown, and given an imprimatur by Abp. Moses Kiley of Milwaukee in 1951, that Our Lady, approaching the end of her life, awaited her death in a joyful and composed manner.
    Our Lord came to her and told her that since she was undeserving of death He would take her to Heaven without her experiencing it.
    She responded humbly that if He would, might she be permitted to die, since He died? He granted her request.

    Fr. Martin Von Cochem, in The Four Last Things.....", stated Jesus experienced His Soul torn from His Body as the one concession to everything awful that goes along with death. (Corruption being one of those, He did not and could not suffer it.) The worst feature about death being that it is agonizing for body and soul to part, He willingly suffered the final agony.

    From that description of Christ's death,
    I could imagine Mary, dying like her Son, may have experienced the same thing, although again, in The Life of Mary, Our Lady is described as "clos[ing] her eyes and her soul left her body without effort."
    Perhaps that meant she suffered none of the customary mental or physical anguish of dying; it is open to interpretation.

    May this Lent be fruitful for you, Intro, and all the readers here.

    God Bless,
    - Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Thank you for the thoughtful comment ! You add to the quality of my posts in making us think.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Introibo,

    Thank you for your post. I used to think that at the exact moment of Mary’s death, she was immediately “revived” and assumed up into heaven. You’ve share some strong arguments with us. I could go either way on this topic, after reading this post and Lee’s with The Mystical City of God’s excerpt, but I will lean towards Mary not dying, mainly due to the points about Mary being free from Original Sin, Pope Pius XII’s change, and the lack of any mention anywhere of a tomb. I think perhaps God wants it kept a mystery, maybe for eternity? I believe that St. Louis de Montfort in one his prayers wrote about the “best part” being kept for Mary, and perhaps this is somewhat in line with that idea. As mentioned, it is good to meditate on these things.

    “St. Bonaventure was not a heretic because the Immaculate Conception was a subject open to theological debate at that time in history.” I admit I find it unfortunate when these things happen as with Ss. Bonaventure and Augustine, and it is a reminder that even though someone is a saint, one must remember that said saint may not have had the proper information at the time. If one were to see such a quote without the proper understanding or context, then it would be confusing and frustrating. Well, I suppose that’s one of the reasons we have the Church and Her Magisterium.

    Yes, a blessed Lent to everyone.

    God bless,
    -Seeking Truth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeking Truth,
      This unsettled controversy is both interesting and, as you stated, allows for great meditations. Hope your Lent is a holy one, my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Hello Introibo.A blessed Lent to you.

    I need some help and advice please on another subject.

    I have sort of become friends with a female co worker who makes the claim she is christian.I thought she might be good to get to know better in the idea of dating but I have a gut feeling it could be wrong.She has made the claim that she reads the bible and listens to christian music but often uses vulgar words as expressions of anger at work situations and makes criticism of her dad whom I have never met.I thought I may be able to change her and bring her to the True Faith.What should I do.Is this what they call a redflag.What other warnings should I be aware of.Help please.Other readers comments and advice too please.Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Anon @1:30
      This is not Introibo,
      so I hope you are not offended by my jumping in here in response to your query.
      I recall a few comments several posts back from a commenter asking for similar advice.
      Anyway, not that this lady would not prove to be a good match for you, she may, but in office and other work settings, the "pool" of possible matches for someone looking for a person with a strong Christian philosophy can be pretty diluted.
      I know this doesn't sound like a lofty analogy, but whatever fish you are trying to catch, try the waters that are likely to have the fish you want.
      Do you have a trad chapel that you frequent? There is a group connected with St Gertrude the Great, Ohio, that has an annual Youth meeting called "YAG in Cincy".
      The numbers attending have grown to about a hundred and several matches leading to marriage have been made there.
      You may not be near the West Chester/Cincinnati area, but this is just an example of the ways you can connect with someone who shares your values.
      Again, pardon me if I am out of line, or if I did not address the exact nature of your question. I just felt I wanted to reach out.

      God bless you, and I wish you all the best.

      -Jannie

      Delete
    2. @anon1:30
      Jannie gave some good advice. As to the specific woman you mention, don't be overly harsh. If these are her only two faults, I'd give her a chance. While vulgarity is unbecoming and wrong, as a NYC lawyer, more than once I've used course language in arguing with opposing counsel. I have tried to eliminate it (and am mostly successful), but the nature of my job--when people are trying to intimidate you with such language--is prone to such. Not an excuse just an explanation. She may have a not so good relationship with her father. Not a huge fault.
      There may be things that are really problematic, in which case you avoid her. We all have faults. Just ask yourself (1) is she trying to be the best for God; (2) is she open to the One true Church and (3) are her faults deal-breakers for me? Hope this helped!

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. As a matter of your views Introibo to the above readers comment about a co worker.What would you do if no they were not open to the true Church and told lies.Run for the hills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:38
      If I met someone when I was single, and she was not open to the One True Faith, I would not date her. To do otherwise is looking for HUGE problems.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. What an interesting subject.Can you give us young people warning signs that one should be aware of when one has a feeling of a vocation to the married state. Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,
      I had to chuckle when you said "WARNING signs" of marriage! My friend, I will do a post on this topic soon after Easter (maybe early May). A lot of readers have asked me to do so, and it should answer all your questions!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. I considered offering this opinion (considering the subject matter) before but delayed. Anyway I think the Dogma of the Assumption is the fourth Living Creature of Apocalypse, the "eagle flying". Here is an excerpt from my blog:

    "In the midst" and simultaneously "round about" the throne, these four living creatures are both cooperating with the Creator and worshiping her Creator. "Full of eyes before and behind" must be understood as another 'approximate metaphor'. It is less useful to visualize than to understand what it means. The position of being before the throne in Heaven is one of timelessness; so being there, one can "see" into the future just as clearly as into the past. The "Queen of Prophets" is one who can do this.

    Verse 7: "And the first living creature was like a lion: and the second living creature like a calf: and the third living creature, having the face, as it were, of a man: and the fourth living creature was like an eagle flying."

    The first, "like a lion" is to be like Our Lord in some unique way; without Original Sin, perhaps. "Like a calf" is a figure of youthfulness, as virginal. "Having the face, as it were, of a man" because She is represented by Our Lord because of Whom He is. "Like an eagle flying" as if already in Heaven.

    These are the four Marian dogmas: The first is the Immaculate Conception: Our Lord could not become Incarnate in one with Original Sin; thus, Our Lady is like Him in that they both could not know sin. The second is the Perpetual Virginity; that is, though Holy Mary bore a Son, She remained a virgin. The third is the Divine Maternity; that She is really, truly, the Mother of God. Lastly, the fourth is the Assumption; that, three days after Her life's blessed conclusion in this life, She was Assumed into Heaven, soul reunited to body.

    The second and the third Marian dogmas were defined in antiquity; they've always been a part of the Tradition of the Church, even before Saints. Jerome and Augustine (around 400 A.D.) But the Immaculate Conception was defined only in 1854, by Pope Pius IX, and the Assumption as recently as 1950, by the last reigning true Pope (Pius XII). The timing of these last two, as we will see, enlightens us on other matters in Apocalypse.

    The "voice of thunder" of the announcement of the first Seal of Chapter 6 is the voice of the Immaculate Conception, who announced Herself as "I am the Immaculate Conception" after the definition by Pius IX, at Lourdes. (100 years before 1958). The papal definition and Our Lady's words are 'the voice of thunder" here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It’s a logical certitude from the churches defined Immaculate Conception doctrine that the BVM was preserved from the penalty of human death. Whether she somehow chose to voluntarily die is utter speculation. Therefore I side entirely with the logical rational view that Mary the Blessed Mother did not suffer death at the time of her departure from planet earth.
    Her complete departure from planet earth is further proved by the Doctrine of the Assumption.

    ReplyDelete