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.

[biblewonk]

I have read everything that St. Paul wrote. Why not address what he wrote above?

If that is all that comes to mind, if it is Paul's magnificat, then the rest of what he wrote won't weigh much. If it did we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Petrosius]

If that is all that comes to mind, if it is Paul's magnificat, then the rest of what he wrote won't weigh much. If it did we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I must say that this is a lame response and avoids the fact that in the passage I quoted St. Paul clearly does not share your belief in the assurance of salvation.

[biblewonk]

I must say that this is a lame response and avoids the fact that in the passage I quoted St. Paul clearly does not share your belief in the assurance of salvation.

I know the passage. There are others that say different, so what do we do? All of Chapter 9 is about election. How do you deal with all of the many verses about election and weigh them against a couple of verses that almost make it seem like salvation is not secure?

[Petrosius]

All of Chapter 9 is about election.

There is no Chapter 9 in Philippians; there are only four chapters.

How do you deal with all of the many verses about election and weigh them against a couple of verses that almost make it seem like salvation is not secure?

Thus the insufficiency of sola scriptura and the need for a living Magisterium.

[biblewonk]

Sorry, I left out the word Romans there. It's too early, my face is sunburnt from a motorcycle ride, I have either burnt eyes or a hair in my eye and I threw my back out yesterday. So please be patient with me.

[biblewonk]

Thus the insufficiency of sola scriptura and the need for a living Magisterium.

Neither term is in the bible and I have no idea what the second one is.

[frogjerk]

I will defend her. I have no desire to fight with anyone, but I will not let her be defamed either.

If Jesus is our brother than Mary is our Mother.

You do well by obeying the 4th commandment.

thats fine.....doesn't matter what order. My point was that Catholics should be the last to chastise another for disobedience to a commandment since they changed the Sabbath and don't observe it themselves.

Your point is disingenuous. Whom did I chastise in my original post?

[jo kus]

"...There are others that say different, so what do we do? All of Chapter 9 is about election"

You must be speaking about Romans 9?

Election is something that we don't know today, but God knows right now whether we are elect. Since God sees everything as one NOW, He is aware of whether we will respond to His grace or not in the end. We can't possibly know OUR OWN status of election in the future. We can only be sure of it today - as by our fruits, we can judge ourselves. We know we are in Christ if we obey His commandments (1 John, Acts 5, etc). This is a sure sign of our election TODAY. But as you know, Biblewonk, some people will revert to the vomit that they left (Peter) and are in a worse situation than before they were "saved". Paul discusses this theme in 1 Cor 10 and Hebrews 3 and 4. The Jews were an elect people, but did they all perservere? Apparently not, and the same can be said of Christians, as Paul discusses in Romans 11 and the branches. (Sorry I don't have more specific verse quotes, I don't have my bible handy)

Regards

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Your point is disingenuous. Whom did I chastise in my original post?

You told Defconw in post #117 that "you would do well to obey the 4th commandment". Maybe before you advise people to keep commandments and then tell others they are disingenous you should remove the beam from your own eye. Just a thought.

[frogjerk]

You told Defconw in post #117 that "you would do well to obey the 4th commandment". Maybe before you advise people to keep commandments and then tell others they are disingenous you should remove the beam from your own eye. Just a thought.

Wrong. Read the post again. You are misquoting me. I said "You do well by obeying the 4th commandment." I never said he "would do well".

[defconw]

It's OK I read the post properly! :)

[Romish_Papist]

Ignore His Word at your peril.

I do no such thing. He entrusted His Word to the Catholic Church through Peter.

Catholocism condemns all who do not believe that there is a co-mediatrix (Mary) despite clear text telling us this is not so?

It is not so. No Catholic is dogmatically bound to believe Mary is Co-Mediatrix.

Do you say you know better than God? Or perhaps the 2XX + popes, many of whom have disagreed on many things, have a better handle on it.

Nope. But they were given the authority to act as Vicar of Christ on earth by Christ Himself via Apostolic Succession.

But hey, I'm just going by God's inspired word. Do you presume to say you know better than God?

No, you're going by your personal interpretation of the Scriptures without the teaching authority of the Church. Not a very good idea if you truly want a clear picture of what His Word says. And I presume nothing. I follow Christ's promise to Peter, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against Holy Mother Church. They cannot prevail, the Holy Spirit protects the Church.

What then is the truth of Christ? His Word or a tradition of the RCC?

Try the entire deposit of the Faith as found in Catholicism (Roman AND Eastern Rites) housed and protected by the Holy Spirit of God.

We all must decide this for ourselves I suppose.

The most common, and dare I say arrogant, error of Protestantism.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

ok sorry. you're correct.....
but it was a mistake not disingenuous. :-)

[frogjerk]

No harm, no foul.

[bondserv]

Jesus is God. God is perfect. Mary is God's mother. Mary is perfect. God was with Mary's body here. Mary's body is with God in Heaven. Could be nowhere else. Perfect. [However if you don't believe Mary is the mother of God like I do, you could have a problem with this, sorry for you.]

Is Mary an eternal being? Was she existent when the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world?

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The Bible gives us reasons how Jesus avoided being tainted by sin like all other men. Jesus was born of the seed of the woman, not the man. Sin is passed down through the seed of the man, Adam!

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The seed of the woman.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

Mary remained a virgin until after Jesus' birth.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Jesus Christ was never in Adam (of the seed of man)!

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Mary was born of the seed of man, her Dad Heli and by extention Adam.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

[bondserv]

Regardless of one's preferred interpretation, there is nothing in the Hebrew to indicate the gender of Eve's seed, male or female. (Except, of course, the fact that women are generally afraid of snakes.)

Thanks for your reply.

A major thing that set the Incarnation of Jesus Christ apart from all other births is that a man was absent in the conception. Mary was a virgin with child.

Being that Mary was a virgin of the Davidic line through David's son Nathan and that Joseph, Jesus' legally adopted Father, was of the royal line of David through Solomon, made her eligible as the mother of Jesus. She contributed the humanness Jesus needed to be a valid ransom for mankind, while God provided Himself a sacrifice.

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Mary's Davidic lineage.

Luk 3:31-32
31 Which was [the son] of Melea, which was [the son] of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,
32 Which was [the son] of Jesse,

Joseph's royal lineage.

Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias;

Mary's blood line made Jesus of David's blood line(something adoption could not do). Joseph made Jesus of the Royal line (something adoption could do). Jesus received his Royal Priesthood without the taint of Adam's sin because He was uniquely the seed of the woman.

All that to say Mary was not sinless for she was conceived by her Dad Heli. Her sin nature was inescapable.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

The only exception of course, Jesus Christ who was the only perfect representation of God in human flesh.

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[XSive Rider]

Where does it say that Moses was assumed, whatever that is supposed to mean? Taken up into heaven I suppose. The bible states that Moses died and God buried him. Jesus Christ was stated to be the mediator of the New Testament, not Mary. I don't care to fight about it, but I have never understood how anyone could believe that Mary was divine. Aren't you taught to believe in the trinity, which you seem to negate by assigning divinity to a human being.

[Pyro7480]

I don't care to fight about it, but I have never understood how anyone could believe that Mary was divine.

Catholics don't believe she's divine. It is their belief that she is the highest of God's creatures.