The Latin Church does not say Mary was not mortal and did not die.It's actually not defined(probably should be) but the consensus is that she did die and than was assumed to heaven. The Church believes that Mary suffered as well..."A word will pierce your heart" and was threatened by satan as we see in typology.. A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
For a Mary who has been "sin-proofed" from the moment of her own conception saying "Yes" would have been no supreme effort. It would have been a given, and not a choice.
Adam and Eve had the choice and they were sinless ,thus, if Mary is the New Eve, what makes you think Mary did not have a choice? Her Choice to say Yes was exactly a supreme choice in perfect union with the will of God
The Latin side thinks of her as some Platonic superwoman, a demi-goddess
This is uncalled for and "over the top" ,I usually enjoy conversing with you,dear brother.You know better! This type of comment serves no purpose and you know it!I'm just merely trying to understand the EO's viewpoint from someone I have learned from and have always respected
Referring to Genesis 3;15.I am sorry that is absurd, because then God intentionally created Adam and Eve so that they would sin. That makes God the author of sin, and that is Calvinism.
God's foreknowledge is all seen as one Now to God,thus ,allowing for free choice not making God the author of sin.
I wish you a Blessed evening
Thought I would share with you this wonderful section from The aate Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s “Love begins with a dream”..
“But God not only thought of her in eternity; He also had her in mind at the beginning of time. In the beginning of history, when the human race fell through the solicitation of a woman, God spoke to the Devil and said, “I will establish a feud between thee and the woman, between thy offspring and hers; she is to crush thy head, while thou dost lie in wait at her heels” (Gen. 3:15). God was saying that, if it was by a woman that man fell, it would be through a woman that God would be revenged. Whoever His Mother would be, she would certainly be blessed among women, and because God Himself chose her, He would see to it that all generations would call her blessed.
When God willed to become Man, He had to decide on the time of His coming, the country in which He would be born, the city in which He would be raised, the people, the race, the political and economic systems that would surround Him, the language He would speak, and the psychological attitudes with which He would come in contact as the Lord of History and the Savior of the World.
All these details would depend entirely on one factor: the woman who would be His Mother. To choose a mother is to choose a social position, a language, a city, an environment, a crisis, and a destiny.
His Mother was not like ours, whom we accepted as something historically fixed, which we could not change; He was born of a Mother whom He chose before He was born. It is the only instance in history where both the Son willed the Mother and the Mother willed the Son. And this is what the Creed means when it says “born of the Virgin Mary.” She was called by God as Aaron was, and Our Lord was born not just of her flesh but also by her consent.
Before taking unto Himself a human nature, He consulted with the Woman, to ask her if she would give Him a man. The Manhood of Jesus was not stolen from humanity, as Prometheus stole fire from heaven; it was given as a gift.
The first man, Adam, was made from the slime of the earth. The first woman was made from a man in an ecstasy. The new Adam, Christ, comes from the new Eve, Mary, in an ecstasy of prayer and love of God and the fullness of freedom.
We should not be surprised that she is spoken of as a thought by God before the world was made. When Whistler painted the picture of his mother, did he not have the image of her in his mind before he ever gathered his colors on his palette? If you could have preexisted your mother (not artistically, but really), would you not have made her the most perfect woman that ever lived -— one so beautiful she would have been the sweet envy of all women, and one so gentle and so merciful that all other mothers would have sought to imitate her virtues? Why, then, should we think that God would do otherwise? When Whistler was complimented on the portrait of his mother, he said, “You know how it is; one tries to make one’s Mummy just as nice as he can.” When God became Man, He too, I believe, would make His Mother as nice as He could -— and that would make her a perfect Mother.
God never does anything without exceeding preparation. The two great masterpieces of God are Creation of man and Re-creation or Redemption of man. Creation was made for unfallen men; His Mystical Body, for fallen men. Before making man, God made a garden of delights -— as God alone knows how to make a garden beautiful. In that Paradise of Creation there were celebrated the first nuptials of man and woman. But man willed not to have blessings, except according to his lower nature. Not only did he lose his happiness; he even wounded his own mind and will. Then God planned the remaking or redeeming of man. But before doing so, he would make another Garden. This new one would be not of earth but of flesh; it would be a Garden over whose portals the name of sin would never be written -— a Garden in which there would grow no weeds of rebellion to choke the growth of the flowers of grace -— a Garden from which there would flow four rivers of redemption to the four corners of the earth -— a Garden so pure that the Heavenly Father would not blush at sending His Own Son into it -— and this “flesh-girt Paradise to be gardened by the Adam new” was Our Blessed Mother.” Fulton J Sheen
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/dream.htm
Beautiful! don’t you think so,dear Brother?
Since her sinlessness is not disputed, the only other reason why she would have died would have been her own mortality (fallen nature), which pretty much leaves the Immaculate Conception out of the picture.
The Church believes that Mary suffered as well...A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
The Book of Revelation rests on dust covered shelves of Orthodox churches. It is the last book to be canonized in the East (9th century), and is never read liturgically. As for Genesis 3, or the Old Testament as a whole, the serpent is never explicitly called or associated with anything satanic. Ha satan (The Accuser) is a title of an angel, and therefore son of God, whom he uses (the Book of Job and elsewhere in the Old Testament) to tempt and to test.
Pre-Babylonian Judaism does not know the dualism between Good and Evil. The dualism is an import which found its way into messianic Judaism through Zoroastrianism, and through messianic Judaism into Christianity. The parallel between Gen 3 and Rev 12 is artificial and meaningless.
Besides, when was Mary tempted by satan and why? In fact, the whole recurring theme in the Bible of God constantly testing and tempting people, sending deceiving spirits, etc. is ridiculous if you think about it. For what possible reason would God tempt anyone, even himself (i.e. Jesus)?!?
And for what possible purpose did he allow temptation of Eve if he already knew that she would fail the test? Is this the world he intentionally created, or did it fall in spite of him? Genesis 6:6 seems to suggest the latter! The OT God is not an all-knowing, all-seeing God, at least not uniformly throughout the Old Testament. There are sections which say that God had to "come down" to "see" and know what was going on!
Adam and Eve had the choice and they were sinless ,thus, if Mary is the New Eve, what makes you think Mary did not have a choice? Her Choice to say Yes was exactly a supreme choice in perfect union with the will of God
But it was no effort to obey God because that's how pre-fall humanity was created—in communion with God. If you read what I wrote you will see that I say "saying 'Yes' would have been no supreme effort" on her part. Besides, he already knew she would say "Yes" as you suggest, or did he close his eyes and "hope" she wouldn't say "No?"
This is uncalled for and "over the top" ,I usually enjoy conversing with you,dear brother.
No "over the top" intended. If, through the Immaculate Conception, Mary was created a pre-fall human with powers that are above those of Eve, as you suggest, then she is not really human. She is unlike any other noëtic creature, whether man (fallen or not) or angel. Think about it: she is ontologically not one of us, so what is she?
I'm just merely trying to understand the EO's viewpoint from someone I have learned from and have always respected
And I am trying to understand the Latins' point of view from someone I have learned from and have always respected, but if I tell you that someone is ontologically not human you'd be more than justified in concluding that this is someone we can not look up to as out role model.
God's foreknowledge is all seen as one Now to God,thus ,allowing for free choice not making God the author of sin.
How did the fall from grace happen to our ancestral parents? By accident? Was it not choreographed first by God planting the tree for the sole purpose of tempting, then stating the forbidden nature of the fruit, then by God creating and placing a talking serpent into the tree so he can test and tempt Eve? Why would God do that? Would you tempt your children and when they fall for it, kick them out of the house for all subsequent generations? Is that the Christ we know?
More importantly, did the Fall happen against God's will, plan and knowledge? Judging from Gen 6:6 it did! It seems that God is blind sided by man's wickedness which developed right on his watch as if he didn't know about it.