They both felt sorrow and cried, Mary became worried when she lost Jesus, Jesus became frustrated a lot of times, and they both suffered death (Jesus had to, but what about Mary?). Are these not all effects of original sin?
Well, neither of them suffered from original sin in themselves but they were in a world surrounded by people who did. I don’t see how they could avoid suffering and sorrow. People who sin will still cause sorrow for people who don’t, particularly if they are the victims. Our Lord certainly was a victim of sin, and our Lady was at least through the suffering she would have felt due to His suffering.
Not feeling suffering as a result of the suffering of others is a result of sin and/or original sin, not the other way around. The rich man walked by Lazarus and did nothing except let him feed on his garbage from the table. The rich man was unmoved because he was darkened and numbed by sin.
Jesus and Mary are compassionate, and so by default, they experienced suffering in life. Far be it from our Mystical Rose that she should lose track of her son and yet feel nothing. Far be it from our Lord that he would witness the handiwork of Satan in every corner of society and yet be unstirred by pain at the sight.
According to the Catholic Church, Jesus and Mary were never in the State of Original Sin; therefore, it is not possible for them to suffer the effects of Original Sin.
According to the Catholic Church, Jesus and Mary were never in the State of Original Sin; therefore, it is not possible for them to suffer the effects of Original Sin per se.
Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
“Jesus had to” Only in the sense that he was passionate about saving humanity according to His Father’s will.
“what about Mary” She, like her Son, prayed, suffered and sacrificed all that she could for poor sinners.
Sorrow and concern for the safety of others are not effects of original sin. I’m not sure Jesus ever did become frustrated. From what I can tell, Jesus was always in full command of Himself, and everything He did was part of His mission.
As for death… well death was certainly an effect of original sin. However, I think a note should be inserted about what that means, really. Prior to sin, humanity was immune to death. It was one of their preternatural gifts. They were immortal. This doesn’t mean, however, that they could not die, if they chose to do so. The result of sin was that man would die whether he chose to do so or not, it was inescapable.
Jesus chose to allow Himself to be killed. We may surmise, however, that if He did not so choose, He would never have died.
As for Mary… well to be honest I’m not sure. I have some thoughts on it, but it’s my own speculation, and not something the Church teaches. Maybe someone else can shed some light on it.
Thank you all for the answers, but I’m still somewhat confused. To my knowledge, Adam and Eve, before the fall, lived a perfect life. There was no sadness, no sickness, no death. It was literally heaven on Earth. But after the fall, due to original sin, everything went to hell. Death came into the world, our understanding became opaque, we became prone and weak to sin. I was under the impression that since Jesus and Mary were preserved from original sin that they were EXACTLY like Adam and Eve. No sadness, sickness, death… or is this just one of those things where I should just trust God and not lose faith just because I don’t understand something?
Agreda touched on the subject regarding Jesus’ death. The common consensus was regarding the Passion, anybody else not sustained by God would have died long before the actual Crucifixion.
30 When therefore Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished; and having bowed his head, he delivered up his spirit.
Agreda suggested that when he bowed his head, it was a gesture of him permitting Death to finally approach him.
Regarding Mary, the Church never taught one way or the other whether Mary was subject to death. When discussing the Assumption, it was always, “After the course of her earthly life was completed…” But if Jesus had subjected himself to experience death, would Mary be more likely to have imitated him? Or to have exercised her prerogative? My vote is that her love would have compelled her to have imitated him… but there’s no dogma attached to the exact manner in which her earthly life was finished.
How could day? where they living in the Garden of Eden? Of course not. They lived surrounded by the sin and violence of their time.
As others have posted they did not have original sin in themselves but they would certainly feel empathy for their fellow men and women who suffered and toiled under the yoke.
Remember the woman who asked Jesus for a miracle even though she was not Jew? Jesus rebuked her telling her that He must first dedicate His ministry to try and recover the Israeli people and yet her sorrow, suffering and humility in asking for His grace moved His heart and He agreed to grant her petition.
We are promised by Jesus and GOD that we will be again like Adam and Eve PRE FALL after the resurrection, and that is what we should worry about.
I am not sure where that knowledge came from. Its distance from the truth is why I started this thread.
Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity in the Philosophy Forum.
You can jump in at post 211. Or you can skim the thread from the beginning.
My apology. You are not the only one who apparently never learned about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity and what it entailed in the Garden. Paragraphs 355-421 of the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *has some fascinating facts. Also recommended is CCC 1730-1732.
[quote=midori_]Regarding Mary, the Church never taught one way or the other whether Mary was subject to death. When discussing the Assumption, it was always, “After the course of her earthly life was completed…” But if Jesus had subjected himself to experience death, would Mary be more likely to have imitated him? Or to have exercised her prerogative? My vote is that her love would have compelled her to have imitated him… but there’s no dogma attached to the exact manner in which her earthly life was finished.
No you are mistaken. The Church has always taught that the Virgin Mary died.
The statement: “After the course of her earthly life was completed…”
was not something that was “always” discussed. At least not until 1950.
Popes, Saints, Fathers of the Church, and the Liturgy all bear witness to the death of the Virgin Mary. It is only in our own befuddled times that we have lost sight of this.
Ah, cool beans, you’re right.
It may help you to not think of Adam and Eve as living perfect lives. They were created good as was all creation.
Here we go again. The Church has not and does not teach that Mary died before being assumed.
If such a teaching existed Catholics would be bound upon pain of sin to believe it. We are not. We are free to believe or not believe Mary died.
Early Christian accounts teach that the she died, including the Life of the Virgin by St. Maximos the Confessor, which is the earliest complete biography of her life. All Eastern Christians (including Eastern Catholics) continue to believe that she died and we even have a liturgical feast dedicated to the commemoration of her death. As for Roman Catholics, there is no reason to reject the belief in her death, as taught by Holy Tradition. Indeed, even Pope JPII said that “the opinions that wish to exclude her from death by natural causes seem groundless.” x]
Death is a consequence the Fall. It is something that all post-Fall humans are afflicted with. Even Christ, by undergoing birth, acquired this consequence. It seems quite preposterous to say that the Theotokos was exempted from death, as that would mean that she would have had to possess a new unfallen human nature. Had she had such an unfallen human nature, she would not have been affected by any consequences of the Fall (e.g. death) and, therefore, Christ would not have taken on any consequences of the Fall (e.g. death) through His birth to her.The problem? Christ’s victory over death is predicated on Him having made Himself subject to death by inheriting that consequence of the Fall from Adam by undergoing birth. Take away the mortality of the Theotokos, and you undermine the salvific role of Christ.
With that all being said, I will go out on a limb here and state that I not only find the idea that the Theotokos didn’t die to be contrary to the ancient tradition of Christianity, but, insofar as the idea undermines the salvific role of Christ, it is an inherently anti-Christian teaching, imho. I would suggest listening to your newly canonised saint, Pope JPII; there are no grounds to reject her having died, as his above quote states.
Just my :twocents:
The preternatural gifts commonly understood to prevent Man from death and suffering were just that – extra, special gifts. They were given to the original human couple and not intrinsic to human nature. That is, the first humans were placed in a world already journeying to perfection. There had always existed natural evils in the Universe. We know this from science; animals have always eaten each other since their existence, earthquakes and floods happened before the Fall, etc.
If humans were placed on Earth without these special gifts, they too would suffer and die, as is the nature of flesh here on Earth.
Being sinless or being conceived without Original Sin means that grace was given to the soul from the start. Communion with God was always there. But Jesus and Mary lived in the natural world. The preternatural gifts were connected with supernatural grace but is not intrinsic to it, as even now we can suffer and die even with sanctifying grace.
Very powerful. Thank you for sharing this.