1) She was "immacualtely conceived" so the curse of Adam was not upon her.
2) She remained a "perpetual virgin".
3) She gave birth to Jesus by having him miraculously avoid going through the vaginal canal (like the rest of humanity).
4) Her hymen remained intact forever.
5) She lived an entirely sin free life.
6) She was better than all of us mere mortal because "Mary did what we can't do – love God with all her heart and mind and soul. There was no other devotion in her life, but God."
5) She was miraculously assumed into heaven.
Of course none of this can be found in scripture or in the teachings of the apostles. But it appears to me to be nothing short of worship. To many, Mary appears to be higher than Human and worthy of what appears to be "worship" (but those who worship her call it "veneration" in order to avoid the obvious scriptural prohibition to worship only God).
But quite frankly I don't see any essential or objective difference in their admiration for Mary and their admiration for Jesus. Since she was herself outside humanity inasmuch as she was born without sin (which would make her unique among all creatures) and lived a sinless life, which would make her equal to Christ (and in fact better than Christ since she was able to live that life without the benefit of being a member of the Trinity).
I now understand why Pius XII felt it necessary to proclaim ex-cathdra that Mary was assumed into heaven. If she were born without sin and did not herself sin, then she could not die. Hence since they have proclaimed the fact of her sinless birth and sinless life, how could they acknowledge that she was capable of dying?
I tell you I have learned a lot from this thread. I have learned how important it is to stick to scripture. The Church at Galatia fell into error quite quickly after Paul had left them alone. The Church at Rome was no more immune from falling into error than the church at Galatia. It appears that they have fallen into error. Only the supremacy of scripture can prevent a church from falling into the preaching of another gospel. Paul did not preach all this nonsense about Mary. None of this nonsense about mary can be found in scripture. It has all come about through tradition. And when tradition is given equal footing with scripture, there is no way to stop the errors from becoming doctrine and dogma.
/rant
Pagan? Because you believe the tired propaganda about the Catholic Church?
If she were born without sin and did not herself sin, then she could not die. Hence since they have proclaimed the fact of her sinless birth and sinless life, how could they acknowledge that she was capable of dying?
The dogma of the Assumption DOES NOT say whether or not Mary died. Jesus was obviously sinless, and He died. Why would He exempt His Mother? The Eastern tradition concerning the end of her life is she "fell asleep" (dormition).
You make many great points, but the best for me was noticing that if she'd been born without sin and had not sinned, then she would not fall under the death penalty and would have to be taken to heaven without dying.
I am a bit amused by the hymen debate...it's so relatable to those societies that elevate virgin brides; the ones that require proof -- a bloodied sheet, an eyewitness, whatever, of the bride's virginity.
Without a hymen in those cultures there was no virginity.
That is not taught and is not even a prevalent belief.
I now understand why Pius XII felt it necessary to proclaim ex-cathdra that Mary was assumed into heaven. If she were born without sin and did not herself sin, then she could not die. Hence since they have proclaimed the fact of her sinless birth and sinless life, how could they acknowledge that she was capable of dying?
Your observation makes sense. In fact, this is the same logic by which all the justified souls go to heaven -- because they are pure. However, the usually cited reason why Pius XII elevated the teaching about the Assumption into dogma is to remind us, after half-century of wars, that our destination is, nevertheless, heaven.