Sorry if this is the wrong section for this. Some of the things the Church teaches about Adam and Eve before the Fall is that they possessed infused knowledge, were impassable (couldn’t be harmed by nature), and were immortal. Now obviously, Jesus died but it could be argued that He was impassable until He chose not to be. Mary aged and at least experienced the Dormition, but this is fitting because she was so united to her Son in all things. So, does it follow that Jesus and Mary who were without sin, and the New Adam and Eve had the same attributes of our unfallen First Parents? We know Jesus had infused knowldege. New Advent says that if Jesus had not been crucified He would have eventually grown old and died but I just don’t see how or why. Did Mary have infused knowledge? was she impassable? Thoughts?
Where exactly does the Church teach this about Adam and Eve? Citations please.
We know from the Gospel accounts that Jesus was injured(and also circumcised as an infant) so he could be ‘harmed’ by nature, but on the other hand death is a result of sin, so he would not have died a natural death had he not been crucified. (if you could provide the new advent reference that would be interesting)
The Scholastics held that Our Lady also had infused knowledge(but it is not directly related to impassibility in any sense of the word) and given her lack of sin some would say she would not have died a natural death. Others say that wanting to be conformed completely to her son she also died “having completed the course of her earthly life”
According to Ven. Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, a work about the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary given the most imprimaturs in history after the Bible, Mary had infused knowledge and experienced pain and suffering. God bless you.
That still does not promote a pious belief to the stature of Church teaching. Church teachings have well-defined boundaries. You will find almost all Church teachings about every subject in a good Catechism, such as the CCC or Baltimore. I assure you that these pious beliefs about Mary, Jesus, and Adam and Eve are conspicuously absent.
Imprimatur, nihil obstat, and other ecclesiastical approbations are given to works which are found not to conflict with teachings. This is a far cry from works which contain nothing but infallible doctrine therein. I can offer many opinions on all sorts of subjects that will not be found to conflict with Church teachings, all the while they remain merely my own opinion and not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church.
I mean you no disrespect, but you are not Ven. Mary of Agreda.
If there were anything false in Ven. Mary of Agreda or her work, the Spanish Inquisition would have uprooted her and her work. The *Mystical City of God *has the highest approbation of several Popes and was required reading for priests before Vatican II. I trust Ven. Mary of Agreda’s work with a pious faith. God bless you.
Popular piety and private revelation are not part of the Deposit of Faith and do not have to be believed with assent of faith or the will. You have no right to attempt to present them as de fide doctrines in an attempt to compel others to believe them, and you have no right to denigrate me for rejecting them personally.
Okay, it appears I was wrong. I did some research and found that Adam and Eve’s impassibility is not like the impassibility awaiting our glorified bodies in heaven (i.ei invulnerable) but simply through prudence and Divine Providence God would not allow Adam and Eve to be injured.
I’m afraid you are misjudging me very unfairly. The Church allows a pious faith to be given to approved private revelation. Recall that *pious *faith is different from the kind of faith that we give to the Scriptures and Tradition. I never said I had anything more than a pious faith for the approved private revelations of Ven. Mary of Agreda, so you have judged me unfairly by saying that I have presented private revelation as *de fide *teaching. (Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of pious faith and perhaps you should look it up to prevent future misunderstandings.) I never meant to denigrate you in my posts, I’m very sorry you are offended – but I told you that I meant no disrespect when I said that you are not Ven. Mary of Agreda, which you aren’t. She excels everyone of us here on CAF in her sanctity, wisdom and supernatural gifts, and I can not – shall not – put a CAFer’s views on the same level as hers, unless they are a saint. If there were anything false/faulty about her or her works that contradicted ANY Catholic Church teaching, the Spanish Inquisition would have uprooted her and her works. I am safe believing her account of the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary with a pious faith because several popes have given the Mystical City of God the highest approbation and they would not be able to do this if ANYTHING in it contradicted sound Catholic doctrine. God bless you.
You wrote concerning Ven. Mary of Agreda, “She excels everyone of us here on CAF in her sanctity, wisdom and supernatural gifts, and I can not – shall not – put a CAFer’s views on the same level as hers, unless they are a saint.”
You are not God so it is only your opinion that “She excels everyone of us here on CAF” and you are entitled to your opinion but still it is only your opinion.
Seems to me when we talk of Mary and Jesus not being as “human”, so to speak, as the rest of us, we are making the Incarnation and Mary saying YES, less than what it truly was and is.
Mary “pondered these things in her heart” for a reason and that reason is not that she knew everything but that she accepted everything.
It is written that Jesus became like us in everything but sin, are any of you Omnipotent?
Are any of you Omnipresent?
Are any of you Omniscient?
We denigrate what God did in the Incarnation when we don’t look at it as a true Incarnation and that Jesus became One of us in everything but sin.
Jesus did not sin but He became “Sin” by taking ALL of EVERYONE’s sins upon Himself, many of us seem to make light of what He did in doing this and don’t seem to see the ramifications of doing this.
Some seem to think that they know “everything” about God, some will be quite surprised to find out that they don’t know everything about God and that some of what they thought they knew about God just wasn’t quite so.
I have read about her exceptional life, virtues and miracles and she does excel all of here. I know there are good people here on CAF, but I do not know of any one with the life, virtues and miracles of a Ven. Mary of Agreda. True saints are an extreme rarity, not the norm. Let us just agree to disagree. I will not change my convictions on this matter. God bless you.
God and the Saints in Heaven can not suffer. But Jesus came down to earth and took on the flesh of His Mother Mary so He could suffer like His Mother and the rest of us creatures, and glorify His Father and redeem us through ignominious suffering and death on the Cross. Mary is the perfect creature and has all the perfection that our first parents had been given, being a perfect creature like they were before the fall. Read about our first parents before their fall and you will better understand Mary’s gifts, though she had been given much more gifts and graces than our first parents and all of us all combined ever could, according to private revelation. According to the Mystical City of God, Mary cooperated with *each and every *grace ever given to her, *and perfectly *(unlike Adam and Eve, who did not do so and fell). She was given privileges and gifts only given to the Mother of God, according to the Mystical City of God, which makes perfect sense, for she is the Holy Mother of God, the Mother of a Divine Child. God bless you.
First of all, the OP asked about Church teaching, and then went on to detail some things that are most definitely not taught by the Church in any fashion. So I wanted to make it clear to all comers in this thread the difference between an acceptable pious belief which may be rejected, vs. a doctrinal Church teaching that must be accepted by all Catholics.
I would beg to differ with you. Perhaps merely on your definition of a “true saint”. The position of the Catholic Church is that true saints are all the holy men and women in Heaven. She has no higher standard. One can distinguish oneself as a Pope or Doctor of the Church with this earthly life, but the only distinction between the holy saints and the damned are that the saints died in a state of grace–period, full stop. I also posit that it is not all that difficult to die in a state of grace, and therefore Heaven is full as can be with billions of saints from all eras and all walks of life. We can debate the relative merits and how hard it is to commit mortal sins and salvation outside the Church, but it is extraordinarily difficult to imagine a Heaven full of a couple hundred or maybe a thousand “true saints”. If you want 144,000 saints then go be a Jehovah’s Witness.