THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY
The assumption of Mary is the doctrine that Mary was taken up bodily into Heaven. Some believers think she died and others think she didn't. The doctrine is essential for being a Roman Catholic. If you wilfully reject it then you are not a Catholic in your belief.
The assumption is really about validating the Catholic doctrine of TO JESUS
THROUGH MARY. So the Catholic is to avoid having a direct relationship with
Jesus. The Catholic confides in Mary and tells her his sins and prays to her and
loves and gets devoted to her. If he does that then there is no need for him to
establish a relationship with Jesus. Mary is alive and human now so we can
relate to her. Hence the need for her assumption.
When a doctrine is question, the Church may issue a definition that makes it
dogma or binding on belief. Defining means making it known for certain that the
doctrine was revealed by God. Catholics hold that with the death of the last
apostle, revelation ceased. So to be able to define a doctrine, the doctrine
must be taught in the Bible or in tradition at least by implication if it is not
explicitly mentioned. The problem is the Church teaching that it only teaches
what is in scripture or tradition. Then if we ask what Church doctrines are in
scripture and tradition, the answer is that whatever the Church says is in it.
In reality, it is the Church that is heeded and not tradition or scripture. This
contradicts the doctrine that revelation ended with the last apostle. Now if
Mary died after the last apostle, and nobody knows for sure when she died, then
belief in the assumption cannot be binding on us. Also Mary could have died
when the apostles were alive and not have been assumed for decades after their
deaths. The mere fact that the Church has no right to make such a doctrine as it
does not care about tradition or the Bible at all but only pretends it does is
proof that the doctrine is not binding on belief.
The legend that the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, was taken up into
Heaven body and soul decades after his resurrection is an old one but not old
enough.
Epiphanius, (Panarion 78.23.9; Williams edition, 2:169): “The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death—as the scripture says, ‘And a sword shall pierce through her soul’—her fame is among the martyrs and her body, by which light rose in the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end”. This is what tradition says. Catholicism went against early tradition to confect the doctrine.
There is no reason to suppose that the assumption is apostolic in origin and every
reason to suppose that it is not. The legend became infallible Roman Catholic
doctrine in 1950 under the wily Pope Pius XII. The Pope defined this doctrine.
This definition was invalid because the pope and the Church can only define what
is definable. There is no evidence that the apostles would have sanctioned such
a doctrine. Plus they may have been dead when Mary was assumed meaning the
doctrine is not binding on us and that the Catholic Church is inventing new
doctrines. The Church says that the Church or the pope are infallible when they
define a doctrine. To exercise infallibility, research is required. The Pope
didn't even know when Mary died but could only guess so what right had he to
declare that it was true that Mary was assumed into Heaven? He was not
infallible for he hadn't done his homework - his procedure was incorrect.
"By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and
Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce and declare and define it to be a
dogma divinely revealed that the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever-virgin, on
the completion of her earthly life was assumed into Heavenly Glory both in body
and soul. Wherefore if anyone presume (though God forbid) wilfully to deny or
cast into doubt that which has been defined by us, let him know that he has
fallen away entirely from the divine and Catholic faith".
Notice that this really affirms two doctrines. One that Mary was taken to Heaven
body and soul and the second was that anybody denying this is not a Catholic
believer AT ALL. By implication, the same is true should somebody contradict any
other Catholic doctrine. The doctrine that the body and blood of Jesus are
physically present in communion is more important so imagine the degree of
separation from Catholic faith that the doubter or denier of it would incur.
Some say the assumption points out that Mary was such a perfect role model that
she had to be taken body and soul to Heaven as a reward. So Mary is the chief
role model for us among the saints. This is madness for we know barely anything
about her. Saints whose lives we have detail are better role models. She is a
failed role model. Evidence such as this is ignored by the popes.
The Catholic Church believes that infallibility does not give the Church the
power to make new doctrine. It gives the Church the power to confirm old
doctrines or doctrines that are implied by Church teachings.
In Catholicism, by Fr Richard P McBrien, pages 1102 to 1104, it is noted that
when defining that Mary was conceived without sin, Pope Pius IX also said that
whoever denies the dogma makes a shipwreck of his or her faith and fallen away
from the unity of the Church- that is, become a non-Catholic. Liberal Catholic
theologians claim that whoever in the Church denies these dogmas is not
necessarily leaving the Church. They could be questioning the inadequacy of the
dogmas - that is, considering them to be attempts to put some vague mysteries
into words and failing. The theologians say that if they are otherwise good
Catholics and don't challenge major doctrines such as that of the redemptive
power of the death of Jesus Christ and his resurrection and the existence of God
then their denial of the two dogmas cannot put them out of the Church for the
dogmas are not that important. But the liberals say that if a person denies the
dogmas just because they are dogmas given by the pope that means the person does
not recognise the pope as necessary for the Church and so are putting themselves
outside the Church.
To this I have to say some things.
The popes themselves claim to be putting mystery into words. Nobody can deny
that Mary was conceived without sin and be excused by the excuse the liberals
offer. It is plain enough what the words mean. To deny the definition is to say
Mary was a sinner. A similar point can be made about the assumption dogma.
Besides, if the mystery excuse works then why can't somebody say that Jesus
never died to save and never rose from the dead? Why can't the excuse be used
for them? The excuse is just an excuse. And pathetic.
So Pius XII proclaimed with infallibility that Mary went to Heaven body and
soul. He didn’t say if it was Catholic doctrine that Mary died or not. He just
said she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. One would think that the
resurrection of Mary from the dead if that is what happened was a more important
idea to promulgate and make a dogma than her bodily ascension into Heaven. That
he couldn’t tell us more makes it all very suspicious.
For the six centuries since the origin of the Church the assumption was not
accepted by any of the great teachers of the Church. Only a barmy French bishop
gave it any credence. In 380 AD, Gregory of Nyssa began to reason that Mary must
have been assumed into Heaven. It is significant that he said nothing about
having any evidence for this but he was just indulging in warped pious
"reasoning". The Breviary rejected the assumption until the Church decided to
delete this rejection in 1570 which does not mean that the Church was starting
to think there was something in the story. Benedict XIV said later that the
tradition was too weak to be made into an Article of Faith or an infallible
doctrine. (See Reason and Belief, page 88-89)
The doctrine springs from a need to make Mary, in effect, the female Christ. The
doctrine seems to have originated among the Collyridians. These were heretics
who believed in the gospels but treated Mary, who they worshipped as a virgin
and Queen of Heaven, as a goddess. They were predominately female. Their Church
began in Thrace and spread to the west and the North of the Black Sea and even
to Arabia. Epiphanius said that they decorated a square throne and put a linen
cloth over it. Then at a time regarded as special and holy they would lay bread
on the throne and offer it as a sacrifice in the name of the Queen of Heaven.
Then in some kind of communion rite they all ate the bread. The ceremony usually
lasted for days. The name Collyridian is a nickname and comes from a word
meaning a small loaf. He condemned them for worshipping Mary and he asserted
that God did not become man from Mary to make a divine being out of her. He then
condemned women priests so the Collyridians had a female priesthood. He even
claimed that women could not baptise. It seems that the heresy was an
exaggeration of Christian reverence for Mary for there was no evidence that it
existed before Epiphanius which implies that it looked orthodox until a thorough
investigation was undertaken. The Collyridians as Geoffrey Ashe said appear to
have come from a tradition that Mary was immortal and taken up bodily into Heave
like the Prophet Elijah was. St Gregory Nazianzus introduced much of the Church
in and around Constantinople to the idea of praying to Mary. Things like that
led to the disintegration and absorption of the sect.
It is imagined that when Jesus preserved his mother from all sin from her
conception that he wouldn’t have let decay touch her body. Nobody knows if the
Virgin died or not but most theologians hold the opinion that she did. So, Mary
rose from the dead. If Mary died then Jesus could have let her decay. Jesus let
himself receive the most degrading death possible so how Catholics could argue
that Mary couldn’t rot can only be explained by their feeling that they like her
better than Jesus. Bodies are decaying by shedding dead cells even when they are
alive and when they will be restored to something surpassing even their former
glory in the resurrection Mary disintegrating is no big deal. So the Catholic
argument for her assumption is incorrect. If the decay of a corpse is degrading
it is that because the corpse should be alive so it is death itself that is
degrading. It would be hypocritical to be more concerned about preserving the
corpse when it was permitted to die.
The doctrine of the assumption is not in the Bible. The apostles were more
important than her and they were not assumed into Heaven. Revelation makes them
the twelve foundations of Heaven (21:14) which is proof that her importance is
exaggerated.
Enoch and Elijah were assumed into Heaven but they could still have died after
that. There were better prophets who were not assumed into Heaven which ought to
warn Catholics that there is no reason for thinking that when that pair were
taken up that the same probably happened to Mary. The Catholic notion that Mary
was conceived without sin and was the mother of God so God couldn’t let decay
touch her body is blasphemous nonsense for God let his own incarnation, Jesus,
be crucified and degraded. It implies that Mary must be better than Jesus in a
sense!
The Catholic Church says the early Christians never venerated the tomb of Mary
where her body was or mentioned it which leads Catholics to suppose that this
means she must have been taken up into Heaven. Jerome wrote about holy places in
the Holy Land but did not mention the Virgin’s tomb. We know that relics and the
remains of people considered to be holy were kept by Christians at least from
the time the martyr, Polycarp, died. But that was not in Eastern Europe or
Israel so the argument that the Virgin must have went up to Heaven when there
were no remains to make relics of it is too feeble. There were lots of saints
who died and for whom no body parts were kept. And most of the body parts that
are kept today are fake relics anyway. There are enough relics claiming to be
pieces of the cross to build a ship.