Skip to comments.
The Assumption of Our Lady
Immaculata Magazine ^
| Oct 1980
| Rev. James M. Keane, O.S.M.
Posted on 06/10/2007 7:18:10 PM PDT by markomalley
Protestants as well as Catholics believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is now in heaven.
This doctrine is called the Ascension and is explicitly revealed in the Bible. All Christians believe, too, that the bodies of the just will be united to their souls at the end of the world and be glorified in heaven after the manner of the Risen Body of Christ. This is also revealed explicitly in the New Testament. It follows, therefore, that the bodies and souls of the departed saints are now separated, that their souls are in heaven and their bodies in the grave. Christians of every conceivable denomination are agreed on these two dogmas.
After that, however, Protestants and Catholics part company, for Catholics believe that the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also in heaven. We call this doctrine the Assumption. By it we hold that the glorification of the flesh, which will take place for us only at the end of time, was granted to Mary at the end of her earthly life. We believe, therefore, that the bodies of both Jesus and Mary are now in heaven. There is, however, this difference: Jesus arose from the tomb and ascended into heaven by his own power, whereas Mary's body was taken up to heaven by the power of her Son. For that reason we use two different words: the Ascension of Christ and the Assumption of Mary.
Historical Data
There is no positive historical data in proof of the historical fact of the Assumption.
"It is impossible to accept the popular and late legend, according to which the Apostles, having been present at the Virgin's death, later found her tomb empty or saw her body wafted away by angels" (Jean Guitton).
There are however, negative historical conditions which are quite impressive. Among others are these:
- At no time in history has Christendom venerated a grave or tomb of the Blessed Virgin.
- Until the 5th century of Christianity there was not even a legend concerning her place of burial.
- There is absolutely no relic of Our Lady's body in existence; nor has any person or city ever claimed possession of such a relic.
"From the earliest ages of the Church the faithful venerated the remains of the Saints, and in instances even strove for the honor of possessing them. Relics of the Apostles and of thousands of martyrs are preserved in richly adorned shrines and caskets. The sacred remains of Mary could not have been lost or neglected; that is a hypothesis which it would be impossible to entertain" (Father Canice, OFM Cap.).
- In the first sixteen centuries of Christianity no reputable theologian or school of theology ever questioned the dogma of the Assumption. It is notable how theologians have been more unanimous in accepting the Assumption than the Immaculate Conception.
Implicit in Bible
The Bible nowhere mentions explicitly this glorification of Mary's Immaculate body. That it has been revealed by God is nevertheless certain; otherwise it could not have been defined as a dogma of faith, A public revelation of the Assumption must have been made to the Apostles, or at least to one of them, because public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle. There are, however, several implicit revelations of the Assumption in the Bible. The most important texts are: Gen. 3:15; Lk. 1:28; Apoc. 12:1-2.
Reasons for the Assumption
Ancient belief in the Assumption was based on the Christian conviction that Christ willed his holy Mother to participate in all his prerogatives. Therefore he associated her in his own glorification by an anticipated resurrection.
The corruption of the grave is a punishment for sin (Gen. 3:19). Our flesh is a "flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3). Through the desires of this flesh the majority of our sins are committed. In Mary, however, there is not the slightest stain of sin. By her Immaculate Conception and fulness of grace she was entitled to immunity from corruption in her body. The principle of corruption which we bear within us did not exist in her. "Flesh and blood," says the Bible, "cannot possess the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 15:15). Even the bodies of the saints do not deserve to enter the kingdom of God. They must first be renewed by the hand of God. But Mary's body — Immaculate, pure, sinless — is consequently incorruptible.
From the first moment of her conception the state of the Blessed Virgin Mary was analogous, but superior, to the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall. Had they not sinned they would not have heard the divine malediction: "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return" (Gen. 3,19). Doesn't justice therefore demand that Mary be preserved from a malediction never merited by her?
Mary's Immaculate Body was, in a sense, the origin of sanctification of all mankind. Her flesh was used to form the flesh of her Son; the flesh which he used on the Cross to destroy death and sin, and which he gave to us that we might rise from the dead. Was this flesh, Mary's flesh, Christ's flesh, the instrument of our redemption and resurrection, to be subject to the corruption of the grave?
"The womb that bore Jesus Christ, the hands that caressed him, the arms that embraced him, the breasts that nourished him, the heart that so loved him — it is impossible to think that these crumbled into dust" (Father Canice, OFM Cap.).
Christ's perfect victory over Satan included victory over sin and death. But Mary, the Mother of God, was most intimately associated with Jesus in his victory over Satan. She not only furnished the flesh which Christ sacrificed for our Redemption, but she also had a definite role of cooperation in this Redemption. She was associated with him in the different parts of his triumph. Hence she was associated with him in his victory over death by her anticipated resurrection and Assumption. This argument is used by Pope Pius IX in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus.
In the virginal conception and birth of his Son, God performed an absolutely unique miracle. This miracle was an act of divine respect for the flesh of the Mother of God. Against all the laws of nature he preserved the corporal integrity of his Mother. Would he later allow that Immaculate flesh to suffer the immeasurably greater lesion of the corruption of the grave?
It is a basic principle of Catholic teaching that all the prerogatives and glories of Mary are because of Jesus Christ. His divine dignity presupposes and demands such perfection in his Mother. The flesh of Mary was the Flesh of Christ; and Christ owed it to himself to preserve from dissolution the body that had served to form his own Body. Mary's body, like her soul, had to be sinless and undefiled. The humiliation of the Mother would have been the humiliation of the Son.
Silence of Early Centuries
The first person known to have asked what happened to Mary's body was St. Epiphanius. He was a 4th century Bishop, close to the scene of events, who had devoted himself seriously to the study of Mary's death. On the occasion of the controversy against the Antidico-marianites, opponents of Mary's virginity, he apparently had no knowledge of even the existence of a tradition concerning the end of Mary's life. In fact, he seemed to be of the opinion as are many mariologists today, that Our Lady did not die. Here are his exact words:
"The Sacred Scriptures do not say that Mary remained in the house of St. John, and the probable reason for the silence of Holy Writ concerning Mary's later life may be found in the fact that her life was so completely heavenly and wonderful that mankind could not possibly have borne the spectacle. Perhaps the Apocalypse (12,13) would show by the woman who was snatched from the dragon, that Mary escaped death. If she did die, her death was kept hidden, that people might not think too carnally about Mary."
Origin of Feast
From the middle of the 5th century a feast called "Commemoration of the Mother of God" was celebrated on August 15th in a shrine located near Jerusalem. Near the end of the 6th century this became a feast commemorating the end of Mary's sojourn on earth and was called the "Dormition of Our Lady." In the beginning of the 8th century Pope Sergius introduced the feast into Rome together with three other feasts of the Blessed Virgin. From Rome it spread rapidly throughout western Europe. It was Pope Hadrian who, at the end of the 8th century, gave it the name of the "Assumption of St. Mary." The Greek Church became interested in this question long before the Latin Church did. Both Greek and Latin writers, however, readily acknowledged their ignorance of the way in which the Blessed Virgin Mary had left this world.
Development and Definition
When Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, it drew attention to the possibility of a dogmatic definition of the Assumption. Both are truths not found explicitly in the Bible. Many began to petition the Apostolic See for its immediate definition. Between 1849 and 1940 more than 2,500 such petitions were received from bishops and superiors of religious orders. These represented 73% of the Catholic hierarchy. On May 1st, 1946, Pope Pius XII sent an Encyclical Letter ("Deiparae Virginis") to all the bishops of the world asking them to make known to him the belief and devotion of themselves, their clergy, and their people regarding the Assumption. 1185 bishops answered that the dogma could safely be defined, and only 16 questioned the advisability of the proclamation at that time. It was therefore a quasi-unanimity. On November 1st of the Holy Year, 1950, the day after the closing of the 8th International Marian Congress, held that year in Rome, Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven. This great event took place in the Piazza of St. Peter's in the presence of 40 Cardinals, 500 bishops, thousands of priests, and close to one million lay persons. The exact words of the dogma of faith definition, extracted from the Bull "Munificentissimus Deus," were:
"Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."
Just as Mary received Christ on earth, so Christ in turn received Mary in heaven. Having deigned to descend to her, it was fitting that he should raise her to himself in his glory. The place of the Mother of God is in the splendors of eternal glory and not in the gloom of the sepulchre.
"The Virgin, who gave history its impetus, was herself soon detached from it, to become instead an emblem of history's goal." — Jean Guitton •
Prayer of Pope Pius XII
"O Immaculate Virgin, Mother of God and Mother of Men, — we believe with all the fervor of our Faith in your triumphal Assumption, both in body and soul, into heaven where you are acclaimed as Queen of all the choirs of angels and all the legions of the Saints; and we unite with them to praise and bless the Lord Who has exalted you above all other pure creatures, and to offer you the tribute of our devotion and our love." (from the Assumption Prayer of Pope Pius XII)
TOPICS: Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: assumption; catholic; dogma; mary; ourlady
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
To: markomalley
2
posted on
06/10/2007 7:43:47 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: markomalley
While this posting definitely leans RCC, it seems that the author made some effort to present information. Kudos for that effort.
The first person known to have asked what happened to Mary's body was St. Epiphanius. He was a 4th century Bishop, close to the scene of events,
So the first time anyone bothered about Mary's death was 3 or more CENTURIES after she died. And this is called "close to the scene of events". He's no closer to scene of events than I am to the scene of the American Revolution. In fact, I am closer to those events; should I start claiming to be an expert?
Have you considered WHY nobody worried about figuring out how Mary died for such a long period of time? Could it possibly be that Mary is not central to the Gospel message? Have you considered the timing surrounding the emergence of Mary as akin to a goddess?
There are reasons why the "Assumption" is not in the Bible: (A) Mary is not of critical importance to the Gospel message; and (B) It never happened.
3
posted on
06/10/2007 9:11:38 PM PDT
by
pjr12345
(But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20)
To: All
3 or more CENTURIESShould read 2 or more CENTURIES
4
posted on
06/10/2007 9:13:47 PM PDT
by
pjr12345
(But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20)
To: markomalley
Gosh, I don’t know. Should I believe a Magisterium going on good, solid Biblical information, using the whole Bible, informed by the Holy Spirit? Or should I listen to a self-named Bible scholar?
5
posted on
06/10/2007 9:16:46 PM PDT
by
tiki
To: tiki
Could you cite the “good, solid Biblical information” you referenced?
Thanks!
6
posted on
06/10/2007 9:20:12 PM PDT
by
pjr12345
(But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20)
To: markomalley
> There is no positive historical data in proof of the historical fact of the Assumption.
If there is no proof then it can hardly be called a fact. At very best The Assumption of the Virgin Mary is an article of Faith amongst Catholics. As St Paul says:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1)
Faith is a marvelous thing, and none of what I have written is intended to downplay the value that Catholics place in their belief in the Assumption. It is fair, tho', to point out that an article of "Faith" is only somewhat stronger than a matter of "Opinion" and certainly does not rank as equivalent to "Historical Fact", for which there is proof.
St Thomas was able to establish the historical fact of Christ's death and resurrection, by touching Christ's wounds in person: he would not believe otherwise.
Our Lord and Master provided, at that time, a specific blessing for those who would come afterward, and only be able to rely upon Faith rather than first-hand experience.
So, perhaps for Catholics the Assumption can become an even more powerful thing, as it can only be an Article of Faith and therefore would carry a specific blessing from Christ Himself.
For non-Catholics, they miss out on nothing by noting that, for them, there is no "substance of things hoped for" with the Assumption, and thus no need for them to have "Faith" in this particular matter. For them it is neither Fact nor Faith, merely a matter of Opinion or at worst a Fable.
Me, I am undecided on this matter.
To: DieHard the Hunter
I can respect your position on the issue:
Me, I am undecided on this matter.
I wish more people who were Sola Scriptura (the scriptures alone) took that kind of attitude. Because I believe that the attitude you reflect through that comment truly display an attitude of "where the scriptures are silent, I must be silent" philosophy.
God Bless!
8
posted on
06/11/2007 3:03:39 AM PDT
by
markomalley
(Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
To: markomalley
After that, however, Protestants and Catholics part company,Not all protestants. Luther believed in the Assumption as well, although he stopped short of agreeing that it was an article of faith. Luther prayed the rosary and was quite devoted to the Blessed Mother as detailed in his many sermons and writings on the topic.
To: markomalley
Not a bad explication at all, though as another posted, from a distinctly Roman pov, which is unfortunate since the Holy Tradition of the Assumption is purely Eastern in origin. By the time the doctrine got going in the West, the Feast of the Dormition of the The Most Holy Theotokos was well established east of the Adriatic. In Orthodoxy, the bodily Assumption is not dogmatically proclaimed but rather it is theologoumennon, a pious belief which it is permissible to hold. As I have posted elsewhere, I know of no Orthodox person who does not hold that belief. Below is the icon of the Dormition and the Apolytikion, Kontakion and Synaxarion of the Feast (August 15th). Note that Christ is holding the soul of His mother.
Apolytikion in the First Tone
In birth, you preserved your virginity; in death, you did not abandon the world, O Theotokos. As mother of life, you departed to the source of life, delivering our souls from death by your intercessions.
Kontakion in the Second Tone
Neither the grave nor death could contain the Theotokos, the unshakable hope, ever vigilant in intercession and protection. As Mother of life, He who dwelt in the ever-virginal womb transposed her to life.
Synaxarion:
Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos, this is what the Church has received from ancient times from the tradition of the Fathers. When the time drew nigh that our Savior was well-pleased to take His Mother to Himself, He declared unto her through an Angel that three days hence, He would translate her from this temporal life to eternity and bliss. On hearing this, she went up with haste to the Mount of Olives, where she prayed continuously. Giving thanks to God, she returned to her house and prepared whatever was necessary for her burial. While these things were taking place, clouds caught up the Apostles from the ends of the earth, where each one happened to be preaching, and brought them at once to the house of the Mother of God, who informed them of the cause of their sudden gathering. As a mother, she consoled them in their affliction as was meet, and then raised her hands to Heaven and prayed for the peace of the world. She blessed the Apostles, and, reclining upon her bed with seemliness, gave up her all-holy spirit into the hands of her Son and God. With reverence and many lights, and chanting burial hymns, the Apostles took up that God-receiving body and brought it to the sepulchre, while the Angels from Heaven chanted with them, and sent forth her who is higher than the Cherubim. But one Jew, moved by malice, audaciously stretched forth his hand upon the bed and immediately received from divine judgment the wages of his audacity. Those daring hands were severed by an invisible blow. But when he repented and asked forgiveness, his hands were restored. When they had reached the place called Gethsemane, they buried there with honor the all-immaculate body of the Theotokos, which was the source of Life. But on the third day after the burial, when they were eating together, and raised up the artos (bread) in Jesus' Name, as was their custom, the Theotokos appeared in the air, saying "Rejoice" to them. From this they learned concerning the bodily translation of the Theotokos into the Heavens. These things has the Church received from the traditions of the Fathers, who have composed many hymns out of reverence, to the glory of the Mother of our God.
10
posted on
06/11/2007 3:54:28 AM PDT
by
Kolokotronis
(Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
To: markomalley
> God Bless!
Thankyou, and God Bless you too, Brother.
Amen, so mote it be
*DieHard*
To: DieHard the Hunter; alpha-8-25-02
5 Solas Ping, Marine!
I learn by doing. This is a great thread with plenty of potential for intelligent and stimulating discussion. A really neat subject worthy of consideration.
Semper Fi and God Bless
DieHard
To: markomalley; rogernz; victim soul; Rosamond; sfm; G S Patton; Gumdrop; trustandhope; MarkBsnr; ...
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
13
posted on
06/11/2007 4:26:28 AM PDT
by
narses
("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
To: DieHard the Hunter; alpha-8-25-02
Great Read!
If I ever meet up with you guys, the first round's on me!
Semper Fi!
To: Northern Yankee
> If I ever meet up with you guys, the first round’s on me!
Likewise, FRiend!
*DieHard*
To: DieHard the Hunter
If there is no proof then it can hardly be called a fact. A "fact" is a statement of concrete information, which must be either true or false. Whether the information is true or false, or can be determined true or false by available means, is not relevant to the "fact" designation.
In the case of the Assumption, either the body of the Virgin Mary was taken up to Heaven, or it wasn't. Therefore, the Assumption is a fact.
16
posted on
06/11/2007 6:15:58 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
("Oh, a Queen may love her subjects in her heart, and yet be dog-wearied of ’em in body and mind.")
To: markomalley
Mary's Immaculate Body was, in a sense, the origin of sanctification of all mankind. Her flesh was used to form the flesh of her Son; the flesh which he used on the Cross to destroy death and sin, and which he gave to us that we might rise from the dead. Was this flesh, Mary's flesh, Christ's flesh, the instrument of our redemption and resurrection, to be subject to the corruption of the grave?****************
How much our Lord must love Mary.
17
posted on
06/11/2007 6:33:56 AM PDT
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: DieHard the Hunter
So, perhaps for Catholics the Assumption can become an even more powerful thing, as it can only be an Article of Faith and therefore would carry a specific blessing from Christ Himself. The bodily ascension of Mary is not in the scriptures !!
Nice going. You have used your own personal wisdom and personal philosophy to grant every pagan and heathen who invents anything in their own mind, and has faith in it then Jesus will bless it.
To think Jesus would bless every false doctrine just because a person has "faith" in it contradicts God. and shows a mishandling of God’s word. Unfortunately your kindness is based on a liberal view of the Bible.
18
posted on
06/11/2007 9:42:10 AM PDT
by
KenTone
To: KenTone
> The bodily ascension of Mary is not in the scriptures !!
No, it is not — you are correct. In fact, I think I made that point when I challenged the use of the term “historical fact”.
> Nice going. You have used your own personal wisdom and personal philosophy to grant every pagan and heathen who invents anything in their own mind, and has faith in it then Jesus will bless it.
I’m certainly not in a position to “grant” anybody anything so far as Jesus blessing goes. Equally, I’m not about to go calling the Assumption of the Virgin Mary “False Doctrine” nor am I about to slag off the Roman Catholic Faith as “False Doctrine”, nor insult Roman Catholics by calling them Pagans and Heathens.
If you don’t like Catholics, then that is your problem, mate, not mine.
> Unfortunately your kindness is based on a liberal view of the Bible.
I think you should spend less time calling people names: it’s un-Christian. Just because you don’t agree with someone is no license to call them “Pagans” or “Heathens” or “Liberal”. That betrays an intolerance that is unseemly.
My “liberal” view of the Bible is based upon long and difficult attempts at reconciling what I know to be true with what I believe must be so. Evolution, the universal flood, and the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther for example.
And my application of St Paul, in this case, was quite appropriate — otherwise, what did he mean?
To: Tax-chick
> In the case of the Assumption, either the body of the Virgin Mary was taken up to Heaven, or it wasn’t. Therefore, the Assumption is a fact.
In which case, I challenge you to prove that “fact”. Because all facts can be proven.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
