The early Christians did not venerate the mother of Christ and she most likely died in obscurity if she lived at all. Maybe she disappeared because she drowned herself and nobody knew what happened to her? Maybe she died a recluse and nobody knew who she was? There is a similar absence of interest in other New Testament characters. Or perhaps a hoax took place. If Mary’s body was stolen from her tomb and people were saying she rose from the dead then there are countless reasons why she could have been stolen.

Even if she had been taken up into Heaven, they would still have pointed out the spot or tomb which would have been the scene of a most wondrous and important miracle – so those who say that the fact that nobody claimed to have Mary’s bones means that she rose again or never died are issuing foolishness. They would have been far more likely to honour the place of the assumption if there had been one. The hypocrisy of saying the silence about a tomb means Mary rose while if she had there would be a shrine at her tomb is apparent. If it is true (which it is not) that the assumption of Mary was believed in by the entire early Church (page 168, Born Fundamentalist Born-Again Catholic) then that means the early Church was wholly gullible with regard to alleged resurrections and so would have been as bad with Jesus’. The Hindus at the time generally believed things about gods and what they had done and the Catholics don’t believe them and yet the early Church supposedly believing Mary rose proves that she did! That is double-standards I’ll tell you!

There are Christian Churches which hold that Mary is buried in a tomb in the Valley of Jehosaphat. In 517 a bishop of Antioch called Severus claimed to have had a revelation that bones in a tomb there were the bones of Mary (page 114, The Marian Conspiracy). He must have been taken seriously for reasons other than his claim to have had a revelation for a shrine grew up that still exists to this day and is kept by schismatic ancient Catholic sects that doubted the assumption of Mary. Father Benedetti was appointed by the Vatican to refute the authenticity of the bones and he seems to have done so. It is possible that the bones of the Virgin were taken away and replaced by bones that were not hers. After all her remains would have made top relics. Benedetti claimed he uncovered evidence of another place where Mary was probably buried and for this the Vatican imposed silence upon him (page 11, The Marian Conspiracy). It is interesting how the Church believes St Helena, Empress of Rome, found the cross and the burial place of Christ and his tomb but denies her claim that she found the place where Mary's was to be found and built a Church there in Ephesus (page 154, The Marian Conspiracy). Until the eighth century, shrine Churches were only built over the tombs of saints. St Helena built such a Church in Ephesus for Mary (page 185, The Marian Conspiracy).

If the early Church believed in the assumption, then it might have believed it only as a pious belief or assumption and not as a part of the faith just like Catholics believe Mary appeared at Lourdes as a pious belief but not as part of their faith which consists of dogmas that the light of God shows them are true and without error. This would mean that the pope had no right or authority to make a dogma of the assumption though he claimed the early Church’s belief in the assumption justified his action. When Mary says at Medjugorje and those other places that she has a body she is clearly advocating heresy and error and papalism. Don’t trust her. Believers that these visions are satanic hoaxes – Satan has to be charming and caring for how else is he going to get you to succumb to temptation? – will get ammunition from the fact that people that touch apparitions find a sensation not like touching a body but like an electric shock!

The Virgin is ignored in the New Testament after a passing reference to her early in the Book of Acts. A bit more could have been said about her. People would be interested in a famous man’s mother and yet they ignored her. There must have been some important lessons that they could have seen in her life to make them tell more about her. So, there being no legends about the Virgin’s corpse does not infer that she must have risen from the dead.

When Jesus was told that his mother was looking for him he snapped that his hearers were his mother for they did the will of God (Mark 3:31-35). Jesus denied the cult of Mary in the Roman Church. He said that doing God’s will was what mattered not being his mother in the physical sense. This tells us that Mary should not be honoured so much just because she gave birth to Jesus. She was not taken up into Heaven for that would be sanctioning devotion to her that God did not want.

Concerning the doctrine of the Virgin not having original sin and the doctrine of her assumption it has been written, “Over the centuries, it is easy to find both beliefs ignored or opposed by theologians and even saints; they are both present in the Church, but scarcely traditional in the sense of a general acceptance. Nor, of course, can either be traced as far back as the apostolic age” (page 210, The Virgin). And of the assumption, “The Assumption doctrine may have gone through a transitional stage. The earliest version of Mary’s Passing ends obscurely: her body is translated to paradise, but nothing is said about its reanimation. Christians may, at first, have accepted that her deceased remains were nowhere on earth, but hesitated to go the rest of the way” (page 248, notes on Chapter 9, ibid).

The evidence for the assumption of Mary is truly dreadful. That Pius XII made this doctrine a dogma that Catholics are bound to believe indicates that the Church is abolishing its traditional stance regarding miracles. This stance says that if there is any doubt the miracle must not be declared to be true by the Church and the evidence needs to be conclusive. This is because a miracle is so unusual and rare and out of respect for God fraud and error must be eliminated lest a work he never performed be attributed to him.

If Mary existed then she is dead. The pope then is not infallible. The Church which declared him infallible is not infallible either. Catholicism is a hoax.

ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME, Michael de Semlyen, Dorchester House Publications, Bucks, 1993
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CATHOLICS ARE ASKING, Tony Coffey, Harvest House Publishers, Oregon ,2006 
BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN-AGAIN CATHOLIC, David B Currie, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996
CATHOLICISM, Richard P McBrien, HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1994
MAKING SAINTS, Kenneth K Woodward, Chatto & Windus, London, 1991
OBJECTIONS TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Ed by Michael de la Bedoyere, Constable, London, 1964
PAPAL SIN, STRUCTURES OF DECEIT, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London, 2000
POPE FICTION, Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press, San Diego, California, 1999
REASON AND BELIEF, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
THE MARIAN CONSPIRACY, Graham Phillips, Pan Books, London, 2001
THE VIRGIN, Geoffrey Ashe, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. London, 1976
WHY BE A CATHOLIC? Fr David Jones OP, Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, London, 1996


No Copyright