It would seem that...
Jesus could suffer grief. Jesus could hunger and thirst. He suffered and died. Adam before the fall could not have experienced any of these things. To apply to Mary the state of Adam before the fall, with none of the consequences of sin, would give her a unique status that didn't apply to her own son. This is what happens when you fail to see that everything the Church teaches about Mary is an overflow from Christology. Mariology that is detached from Christology gives us these kinds of arguments.
This is one of the bases for my thinking: What unfallen man was like, or would be like, is largely a matter of speculation. We need to be very careful about building on top of that speculation, while also being very respectful of the speculations in our tradition.
+J.M.J+
In 1567 Pope St. Pius V issued a Bull condemning the Errors of one Michael du Bay. One of the errors he condemned was as follows:
"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 punishment for actual sin, or for original sin" (Denzinger 1073).
Thus it would be an error to say that Our Lady died because of the sin of Adam. If she died (I believe she did) it was for another reason; perhaps to make her "like unto Christ" as much as is possible for a mere creature to resemble God Incarnate.
Mary's life parallels Jesus' in other respects as well: both are sinless, celibate, bodily present in Heaven, Sacred & Immaculate Hearts, etc. This does not by any means make them equal, of course, but it shows that God wills to conform Mary to Jesus in certain respects. Her death would be another case in point.
It is often said that Blessed Mother died not because of sin, but out of her intense love for her Divine Son.
In Jesu et Maria,
"Thus it would be an error to say that Our Lady died because of the sin of Adam."
It could be easy to misunderstand this. This statement is merely affirming that she didn't have original sin. This was before the Church defined the Immaculate Conception which settled the question of WHEN she was freed of original sin.
All death is the result of Adam's sin.
+J.M.J+
Granted, human death ultimately results from Adam's sin. But I think the operative word in that above quote is "punishment". Mary did not die as a *punishment* for sin, since she had no sin herself. If she died, then she died out of love for Christ and to conform her to her Son, the conqueror of sin and death.
Here's an article from The Mary Page which discusses this matter:
What about Mary's death?
http://www.udayton.edu/mary/ques.../faq/
faq24.html
In Jesu et Maria,
the historical basis on which the definition of the dogma of the Assumption was made was wrong,
Humm? Could you be a little explicit?
I was under the impression that the definition specificially evaded the question by saying that Mary was assumed when her earthly life was done. (Having looked at Rosemary's link, I can now assert that it was.)
One should note that there is at least arguing case that Mary's not dying was not unique: Enoch and Elijah.
If you read Munificentessimus Deus, you will find that most or all of the evidence Pope Pius mentions to prove that Mary's assumption was believed throughout the centuries and throughout the Church also make explicit or implicit reference to her death.
In fact, I don't think anyone could read that document and come away with the sense that Pius, or anyone he quoted, believed Mary did not die.
Tom,
I think I'm following you and will try to cobble together a response, or perhaps reassertion of my point, on my blog soon.
Bill,
I think you've confused what, as Aquinas puts it, Christ "contracted" of necessity with what he willingly "assumed" with regard to the Incarnation. Here's an example from the Summa (my emphasis):
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4...umma/
401403.htm
Whether Christ contracted these defects? . . .
I answer that, In the verb "to contract" is understood the relation of effect to cause, i.e. that is said to be contracted which is derived of necessity together with its cause. Now the cause of death and such like defects in human nature is sin, since "by sin death entered into this world," according to Rm. 5:12. And hence they who incur these defects, as due to sin, are properly said to contract them. Now Christ had not these defects, as due to sin, since, as Augustine [Alcuin in the Gloss, Ord., expounding John 3:31, "He that cometh from above, is above all," says: "Christ came from above, i.e. from the height of human nature, which it had before the fall of the first man." For He received human nature without sin, in the purity which it had in the state of innocence. In the same way He might have assumed human nature without defects. Thus it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects as if taking them upon Himself as due to sin, but by His own will.
Commenting by HaloScan
