Why Catholics Believe in the Assumption of Mary

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 08-15-05 | Heidi Hess Saxton

[Salvation]

by Heidi Hess Saxton

Other Articles by Heidi Hess Saxton

Why Catholics Believe in the Assumption of Mary

08/15/05

My friend Margie, who teaches two- to three-year-olds in our parish religious education program, says that the secret to teaching this age group is a healthy prayer life. The week she taught her class about the Assumption of Mary, Margie spent a long time on her knees.

She was stumped. “How is it possible to explain this to a two-year-old?”

Fortunately, our Lord always answers the prayers of those who want to honor His Mother. “As I prayed, the idea came to me — a helium balloon! I tied a string on the balloon and taped a picture of Jesus to the front. I let one of the children release the string in class to illustrate how Jesus was taken into heaven. Then I tied a picture of Mary to the end of the string and released the balloon a second time to show how Jesus ‘pulled’ His Mother up to heaven to be with Him. It was a simple thing — but it worked!”

This simple truth, that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven, is difficult for some Christians to grasp. Why is this dogma an important part of the Catholic faith?

The Assumption of Mary is one of four dogmas to be infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In 1950, Pope Pius XII promulgated this dogma in a letter entitled Munificentissimus Deus:

Immaculate in her conception, a spotless virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble companion of the divine Redeemer Who won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, she finally obtained as the crowning glory of her privileges to be preserved from the corruption of the tomb and like her Son before her, to conquer death and to be raised body and soul to the glory of heaven, to shine refulgent as Queen at the right hand of the Son, the immortal King of ages [cf. 1 Tm 1:17].

Although this was the first time the doctrine was formally defined, it should be noted that belief in the Assumption of Mary has long been a part of our faith tradition. There are three strong arguments for this tradition: Scripture, the devotional practices of the early Church, and the writings of the Church Fathers.

The concept of the Assumption is not unprecedented in Scripture. The Bible gives three examples of people who did not experience death the normal way: Enoch (Gn 5:25), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:9-11), and Moses (Dt 34:5-7, Jude 1:9). Both Moses and Elijah are visible at Christ’s Transfiguration (see Mk 9:4-5; Mt 17:3).

Even so, the Assumption of Mary has a unique place in the redemption story: Her purity and dignity as the Mother of God has accorded her a unique place in heaven, in anticipation of the heavenly glory that we will one day receive ourselves: “In teaching her doctrine about the human person’s destination after death, the Church excludes any explanation that would deprive the assumption of the Virgin Mary of its unique meaning, namely the fact that the bodily glorification of the virgin is an anticipation of the glorification that is the destiny of all the other elect.”

It is from this heavenly place of glory that she intercedes for us, as the “woman clothed with the sun” whose descendents are “all those who obey God’s commandments and are faithful to the truth revealed by Jesus” (Rv 12:17).

Why would Mary receive such special graces from God? In the Revelation of John, we find one clue. In Revelation 11:19, John reports seeing “the ark of his covenant within his temple,” just before he sees “a woman clothed with the sun” (Rv 12:1). The proximity of these two images suggested to some Church Fathers that the two are actually one — that is, that Mary is herself the Ark of the New Covenant.

As you may recall, the Ark of the Covenant was a sacred box that contained three reminders of God’s presence among His people Israel: a jar of the manna God fed His people in the desert; the flowering rod of Aaron, a sign of his priestly office; and the tablets of stone containing the Law, which Moses received from God. The Ark was kept in the Holy of Holies, where the high priest entered once a year to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people.

As the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary held within her the Bread of Life, the great High Priest, and the one who came “not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it” (Mt 5:17). And so, just as the first Ark remained within the Holy of Holies, where the priest offered God sacrifices on behalf of the people, so the Ark of the New Covenant has a cherished place in heaven, near the one Who offers up the perfect offering (Heb 12:22-24).

There is no explicit statement in Scripture about Mary’s death, any more than it gives us details about the end of Joseph’s life or the deaths of most of the Apostles. These things have been preserved for us through Church Tradition, and particularly through her liturgical and devotional practices.

For example, the Church has always preserved and revered the relics of her saints — that is, the bodies and personal effects of those who have gone before us to heaven. However, no relics of Jesus’s mother exist, or are even mentioned in the writings of the early Church. Had Mary’s body remained in the tomb, her relics would certainly have been given the highest place of honor — like the bits of the Apostles’ relics that are cherished in altars of Catholic churches all over the world.

We need not be alarmed at Scripture’s silence. Much of the New Testament was likely written within Mary’s lifetime. It is also likely that the full implications of Mary’s unique role in the salvation story took some time to develop. This is true in many areas of Catholic teaching.

How can this be? While the full revelation of the Gospel was completely transmitted by the Apostles, the implications of this revelation have fully developed over the course of centuries. This is why the Holy Spirit was sent, to guide us “to all truth” (Jn 16:13). And this is why we draw from Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Scriptures for our storehouse of spiritual truth.

Since Mary was kept from the stain of original sin, and remained holy throughout her life (CCC 966), Mary may not have experienced physical death. For this reason, the Eastern Church Fathers speak of the “dormition” or “falling asleep” of Mary. As St. John of Damascus observed: “The earth could not bear her divine body and dissolve it, as with other mortals. Nay, though necessary that it be delivered to death, three days thereafter, her relics were delivered incorruptible into angelic hands. She becomes incorruptible, rises, and is translated to heaven. There she stands before her Son and God in a living body.”

The Roman Catholic Church affirms only that Mary was taken into heavenly glory “when the course of her earthly life was finished...” (CCC 966). Some sources suggest that all Apostles except Thomas (even those who had already died) were present at Mary’s bedside, and carried her to her tomb where three days later her body disappeared, leaving only a few grave clothes and the strong aroma of roses in her wake.

In his apostolic letter Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II reminds us of the most important aspect of Mary’s Assumption — she is our roadmap to that blessed state of grace, the string that guides us ever heavenward: “It can be said that ‘in the Most Holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle.’ Hence, as Christians raise their eyes with faith to Mary in the course of their earthly pilgrimage, they "strive to increase in holiness." Mary, the exalted Daughter of Sion, helps all her children, wherever they may be and whatever their condition, to find in Christ the path to the Father's house.


Raised in the Evangelical Protestant tradition, Heidi Saxton was confirmed Catholic in 1993. She is the author of With Mary in Prayer (Loyola) and is a graduate student (theology) at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. You may contact Heidi at hsaxton@christianword.com.

[annalex]

had half brothers and sisters

Hebrew or Aramaic used the same word for "brother", "half brother", and "cousin", so it does not prove that Mary had other children.

A more positive reference to perpetual virginity of Mary is in this prophecy:

2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut

(Ezechiel 44:2)

[wagglebee]

I didn't say I preferred the KJV, I just think the wording of the Magnificat is very poetic; but you are correct it does make a few subtle, yet important changes. However, I think this had more to do with the translator than any attempt at doctrinal revision.

[jo kus]

"Where is John the Baptist's and can you prove it's him? This is the dumbest reason to make up a doctrine about Mary that I've ever seen"

Perhaps you didn't know that there are relics of John the Baptist?

Considering Mary was so highly venerated (HONORED!) by Christians, where are those relics? They have relics of other saints. What about Mary?

Regards

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

bump

[Diego1618]

Don't forget Enoch, the first recorded in the Bible to be taken up without dieing.

How about John 3:13 NIV? "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man."

This would of course apply to Mary also. The book of John was written about the last decade of the 1st century.....so Mary would have been well over 100 years old....if she was still alive at this time.

[wagglebee]

You seem to forget that the "Bible Christians" believe in neither saints, nor relics. Their beliefs are primarily contained to the worship of the Bible (though they cannot agree on any translation) as taught to them by a variety of quasi-ordained ministers and televangelists (though the teachings of these men are often quite conflicting) and their salvation requires regular donations to such ministers and televangelists in order that these "learned" men might adorn themselves in even more jewelry and travel in fancy limousines and private aircraft. And isn't it funny that these "blessings" these people recieve for their "tithes" bear a striking resemblance to the sale of indulgences that the early Protestants were so opposed to (and that the Catholic Church later put a stop to)?

[wagglebee]

How about John 3:13 NIV? "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man."

This would of course apply to Mary also. The book of John was written about the last decade of the 1st century.....so Mary would have been well over 100 years old....if she was still alive at this time.

You seem to have misread this verse. You are confusing the writings of John with the words of the Lord. John is quoting Jesus, and Jesus was clearly speaking in the present tense. It is entirely possible that no one entered the gates of heaven up to that time, though they would upon the Lord's Ascension (a clear indication of Purgatory). The fact that John did not write the Gospel until many decades later does not mean that in the decades that passed, many others had not entered heaven.

[Diego1618]

Enoch and Elijah were both taken up to heaven

See John 3:13 wriiten during the last decade of the 1st century."No one has ever gone to heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man."

[Romish_Papist]

Correction, we know because Christ told us. Ignore His word at your peril. Catholicism IS the guardian of the Truth of Christ. Or perhaps the 31,000 Protestant denominations, all of whom disagree on many things, have a better handle on it? I think not. But hey, I'm just going by what Christ said. Do you presume to say you know better than Christ?

[Petrosius]

To be accurate it is Catholic belief that before the Resurrection Enoch and Elijah would have gone to the Limbo of the Patriarchs, as did the souls of all the Old Testament saints. After the Resurrection of our Lord, Limbo was emptied as the souls of the saints there entered into Heaven. But it must be noted that Enoch and Elijah were taken from the Earth bodily as well as with their souls. Thus now they are in Heaven in both body and soul.

[Diego1618]

Hebrew or Aramaic used the same word for "brother", "half brother", and "cousin", so it does not prove that Mary had other children.

How about these??? Matt. 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus came about. His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but "before they came together", she was found to be with child through the Holy Spririt.

Matt. 1:25 But he had no "union" with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. (Why mention both brothers and disciples if they were one and the same?)

Acts 1:14 They all joined together constantly in prayer; along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. (The previous verse mentions all the disciples..so again, why the specific distinction?)

Matt. 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, waiting to speak with him.(His answer indicated that all his disciples were inside with him...verse 49.)

Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her "firstborn", a son. She wrapped him in strips of cloth and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

These passages from Holy Scipture are very plain...and this is the reason Mary did not have perpetual virginity. There is much written to indicate she had a very large family. There is nothing written to indicate she was forever a virgin. The only proof from your quarter is your tradition. Your tradition is lacking.

I am not a protestant! Never been one. Don't buy most of what they say either.

[wagglebee]

I find it curious that you fail to respond to my discussion of John 3:13 (post #147), yet you still use this verse as a reference.

As you may (or more likely may not) be aware, there is absolutely no doctrinal foundation for "sola scriptura" anywhere in scripture. In fact it says quite the opposite:
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John 20:30-31, NIV
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25, NIV

Clearly this is telling us that everything IS NOT written in the New Testament, and that many other things, which are central to Christian tradition, are not included because they are not necessary to establish the Lord's act of Salvation or Divinity. This does not preclude tradition, in fact John clearly alludes to it.

Perhaps one of the clearest passages AGAINST the notion of "sola scriptura" is this from Peter:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-16

What is obvious from this is that Peter understood that there is a need for tradition and a church hierarchy for the reading and interpretation of scripture.

On occasion, I will read over evangelical Protestant threads on Free Republic and frankly many of the ideas I see put forth on these I find ridiculous, heretical and ignorant; however, I do not presume to insult other Christians by intruding upon their dialog to tell them that they are wrong. Yet invariably, every single Catholic thread which pertains to any matter which Protestants find disagreeable is hijacked and rather than Catholics having the opportunity to partake in the same dialog as other Christians, we invariably have to defend our beliefs. Most of us do not have any problems defending our faith, but the arrogance with which the anti-Catholics refuse to even acknowledge what we are saying is damnably insulting. Bear in mind that the Catholic Church has survived intact and flourished for over 2000 years and yes, there have been mistakes, but we have learned from them repented and moved forward. In contrast Protestanism has been around for slightly less than 500 years. And what has become of the Reformation? There are a handful of "mainstream" denominations which are basically on the verge of collapse over issues such as homosexuality, the ordination of women and even Christ's Divinity; then there are hundreds of splinter groups with no cohesive teachings whatsoever; and it would seem to me, THAT NONE OF THESE GROUPS CAN AGREE ON ANYTHING! If the Bible is so simple to interpret, then surely there should be one interpretation upon which all Protestants can agree, yet they cannot even all agree on which translation of the Bible is valid! And this leaves me with just one final verse to quote (which interestingly enough, Jonathan Edwards used as the theme for one of the most famous sermons ever preached), and I will quote from the King James Version (I find it useful to try to use Protestant tranlations when speaking to Protestants, that way it is more difficult for them to claim that the Catholics have changed scripture):
To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.
Deuteronomy 32:35

[Petrosius]

These passages from Holy Scipture are very plain

Actually, because of your misunderstanding, these passages are not as plain as you think. Matt 1:18 and 1:25 are only referring to Mary's virginity prior to the moments mentioned. The usage however does not imply that her virginity did not continue afterward.

In the various references to "brothers" read "male relatives", which is what would have been understood in Aramaic.

"First born" in Luke 2:7 is a technical term and refers to the requirement that the first born male child must be redeemed from God under the Mosaic Law. It does not indicate that there must be a second born, etc. A male only child is still a "first born".

[Petrosius]

If the Bible is so simple to interpret, then surely there should be one interpretation upon which all Protestants can agree, yet they cannot even all agree on which translation of the Bible is valid!

AMEN!

[wagglebee]

It may be viewed as insulting by some, but it is the truth!

[jo kus]

"...isn't it funny that these "blessings" these people recieve for their "tithes" bear a striking resemblance to the sale of indulgences that the early Protestants were so opposed to (and that the Catholic Church later put a stop to)?"

I haven't thought of it that way! But be careful, there will always be weeds among the wheat.

Regards

[phatus maximus]

Horrible example of a Bible believing "protestant" but you are correct that those slimeballs are way off base...

[phatus maximus]

Greetings...Out of curiousity...Who confirms the relics are actually from the person that they are claimed to be from?

Also, why does no mention of the importance of relics exist in scripture? In fact, I can't find the word "relic" in scripture anywhere. Where/when did relics take on the importance they do in the RCC today?

Thank you for your insight. God Bless

[Petrosius]

I will just repeat what I said in post #95:

Take away the authority of the living Church and the authority of the canonical books of the Bible becomes no greater than that of the Gnostic scriptures.