Replies

I believe that the Catholic Church may still not teach specifically whether Mary did die. The reason for this is of course the Augustinian concept of the original sin which the Orthodox recognize but not as is understood in the west. If she had been cleansed of all sin at her own conception, and lived a sinless life (by choice, as she was 'equipped' to do so by special Grace), then she would have no reason to die any more than Eve would not have died had she not sinned.

You anticipated the follow up very well, thanks. I suppose I've never associated original sin with physical death so I wasn't thinking along those lines. What is the thinking on what physically happened to her body when it was assumed? Was she put back into it and still "using" it? :) I don't understand the purpose for her assumption.

I suppose I've never associated original sin with physical death

According to the Church teaching, the souls are immortal, so death, by necessity, refers only to the body. We don't read of angels dying! But there is more to this, of course, and the best way to describe it is "play on words."

What is the thinking on what physically happened to her body when it was assumed?

I believe, the Church teaches that she sits next to her Son's feet. Again, this is one of those things we accept "on faith." My understanding is that because she never sinned, her body was immaculate (although her "nature" was mortal!), she will not be judged at the End of Times and was therefore taken to heaven as the saved will be at the second Coming.

Was she put back into it and still "using" it?

I would imagine so. Why else would we have them? Heaven is, I think, outside of the created world, so anything is possible.

I don't understand the purpose for her assumption.

The assumption is what will happen to the saved when they receive their new bodies at the End Of Times. Her body is immauclate, so she doesn't need one. Maybe those hwo are more convinced then I could produce some patristic comments on the assumption, if there are any.

I don't understand the purpose for her assumption.

Think of what was happening at the time, FK. The Assumption was defined in 1950 - right after World War 2 and during the time frame of the beginning of the Cold War. The philosophies in opposition to the Church at the time was totalitarianism, communism, and facsisism. Each of these taught that man was of little consequence. The Church's teachings from day one taught something else - they taught that man was a dignified creation (unlike what some "reformers" taught). The Church has taught that man is created in the image of God and has a particular destiny in store. Mary is the pioneer of this destiny. Being fully and entirely human and human alone, we can look to her and hold out the hope and belief that we, too, will share in the glory that she shares in today.

This is the reasoning and the timing of the Doctrine of the Assumption. It is the alternate message to what we hear today from our society - even now, where man is merely a cog in the big wheel of society - and if he becomes incapacitated or can no longer produce widgets, he becomes worthless as a cog. He becomes disposable. The Church continues to refute that idea and philosophy with the Doctrine of the Assumption. We believe that the Spirit inspired the Church to define this doctrine at that specific time - to express her beliefs and to refute those of the world.

Regards