Evidence for the Assumption

[Cruxis117]

I accept the Assumption. However, a Protestant friend of mine does not. He has asked what the Church uses as ‘evidence’ for the doctrine. I’m a bit stumped. Any help is much appreciated!

 

[MarcoPolo]

It’s tough for a Protestant to grasp because typology is so often alien to them, such as Mary as the new Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, etc… These figures all contribute to the dogma, and point to it in a confluence of arrows.

I recommend reading The Asumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary from Juniper Carol’s Mariology. It’s a little lengthy, but if your friend wants the truth, he/she should be willing to delve into the material with an honest eye.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I accept the Assumption. However, a Protestant friend of mine does not. He has asked what the Church uses as ‘evidence’ for the doctrine. I’m a bit stumped. Any help is much appreciated!

How about the lack of evidence? There are no first class relics of the Theotokos. I’m pretty sure the early Christians would have kept those first class relics of the Mother of God if there were any (although pieces of her hair could have been kept and would definitely be first class relics as well).

 

[Benadam]

Agree with the above post

One of the proofs for me isn’t theological. There were many faked relics of Saints throughout the centuries. The more likely people would buy a relic from a certain Saint the more likely there would be fakes. The more popular the Saint the more fake relics of that Saint are found. Except for St Mary Mother of God. The belief in the Assumption was so universal that forgers never bothered faking Our blessed Mothers remains. They knew no one would buy them because everyone believed in the Assumption. That’s why there aren’t even fake relics of Our Blessed Mother.

 

[LaSainte]

Well, we as Catholics believe she was sinless. If you believe that, then it stands to reason that she would not have tasted death, which is the penalty for sin, and was therefore assumed into Heaven. Now you just need to prove her sinlessness to your Protestant friend

 

[Georgia]

Well, we as Catholics believe she was sinless. If you believe that, then it stands to reason that she would not have tasted death, which is the penalty for sin, and was therefore assumed into Heaven. Now you just need to prove her sinlessness to your Protestant friend

That’s a bigger jump than you might expect. When I was Fundamentalist, I heard over and over that Mary was a sinner and that she needed to be saved. That was followed with the quote used as a proof text: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” I am not talking about private conversations. Those things were said in regular sermons.

I am not sure why there was the hostility toward Mary. If I had to guess, I would say it was nothing more than part of an anti-Catholic bias.

 

[Perplexity]

I think whatever the evidence is, it must make it probable that the Assumption of Mary is an item within the Deposit of Faith (sealed at the death of the last Apostle).

"And this infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. - Lumen Gentium, n. 25.

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter and his successors so that by His revelations they might propose new doctrine but that by his assistance they might jealously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of the faith handed down by the apostles.” - Vatican Council, De Ecclesia, chap. 4.

So if the magisterium defines anything infallibly, that thing must be contained within the Deposit of Faith. Since Mary’s assumption was declared ex cathedra, it follows that it is an item in the Deposit of Faith.

Most proposed evidences date hundreds of years after the Deposit was sealed, and only in disparate quotes from few Fathers. The task is a very, very heavy burden.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, we as Catholics believe she was sinless. If you believe that, then it stands to reason that she would not have tasted death, which is the penalty for sin, and was therefore assumed into Heaven. Now you just need to prove her sinlessness to your Protestant friend

But the fact is Mary died, was resurrected by Christ, then assumed into heaven. That has been the longstanding tradition of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s a bigger jump than you might expect. When I was Fundamentalist, I heard over and over that Mary was a sinner and that she needed to be saved. That was followed with the quote used as a proof text: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” I am not talking about private conversations. Those things were said in regular sermons.

I am not sure why there was the hostility toward Mary. If I had to guess, I would say it was nothing more than part of an anti-Catholic bias.

Mary was indeed saved. When conceived most pure and immaculate, wasn’t that God acting to save her from the very beginning of her existence? And its not because she sinned, but since we all are subject to the nature of the fallen world, we are all imperfect. But Mary was filled with God’s grace from the very beginning.

 

[TimothyH]

I accept the Assumption. However, a Protestant friend of mine does not. He has asked what the Church uses as ‘evidence’ for the doctrine. I’m a bit stumped. Any help is much appreciated!

Assuming your Protestant friend believes in God and the Bible…

And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli’jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (1 Kings 2:11 RSV)

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.(Hebrews 11:5)

Enoch and Elijiah were clearly assumed into heaven and Paul tells us that Enoch pleased God. Mary pleased God enough that she became the Mother of God, so why couldn’t Mary be assumed into heaven as well?

If not proof, Elijiah’s and Enoch’s assumption fits your Protestant friend’s demand for “Evidence” pretty clearly.

-Tim-

 

[Nita]

Originally Posted by LaSainte
Well, we as Catholics believe she was sinless. If you believe that, then it stands to reason that she would not have tasted death, which is the penalty for sin, and was therefore assumed into Heaven. Now you just need to prove her sinlessness to your Protestant friend

But the fact is Mary died, was resurrected by Christ, then assumed into heaven. That has been the longstanding tradition of the Church.

The Church has made no definitive declaration as to whether or not Mary underwent physical death prior to her assumption. At this point, we are free to think either way.
If you read the section in the CCC on Mary (#963-975), you’ll note that any comment on death regarding Mary (whether she did or not) is carefully avoided.

What we must believe is that she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think whatever the evidence is, it must make it probable that the Assumption of Mary is an item within the Deposit of Faith (sealed at the death of the last Apostle). … The task is a very, very heavy burden.

That a truth is contained in the deposit of faith does not mean it must be articulated in its final form in the deposit of faith. Rather, truths derived from the deposit of faith can be derived when comparing other truths. That goes for the nature of God as Trinity, the hypostatic union of the Incarnation, the books of Scripture, etc… So whether a truth unfolds more clearly from the deposit 50 years, 100 years, or 500 years is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit set no statute of limitations on guiding the Church “to all truth.” The rules are not as you suggest.

 

[Perplexity]

That a truth is contained in the deposit of faith does not mean it must be articulated in its final form in the deposit of faith. Rather, truths derived from the deposit of faith can be derived when comparing other truths. That goes for the nature of God as Trinity, the hypostatic union of the Incarnation, the books of Scripture, etc… So whether a truth unfolds more clearly from the deposit 50 years, 100 years, or 500 years is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit set no statute of limitations on guiding the Church “to all truth.” The rules are not as you suggest.

I never suggested the developed form must be in the deposit of Faith…

However, there has to be the seed. It can be incredibly hard to show that a particular belief in 1st century Christianity is the seed form of a complex 5th or 6th century belief. I rarely see a Catholic actually demonstrate that the seed exists in the Deposit: they usually cite late Church fathers and claim the Church has always believed it, it just wasn’t disputed

 

[MarcoPolo]

However, there has to be the seed. It can be incredibly hard to show that a particular belief in 1st century Christianity is the seed form of a complex 5th or 6th century belief. I rarely see a Catholic actually demonstrate that the seed exists in the Deposit: they usually cite late Church fathers and claim the Church has always believed it, it just wasn’t disputed

We agree, the seeds must be there. I also agree with those who think it is telling that there was no dispute once an Assumption or Dormition was taught more succinctly, since there was always someone who campaigned against a spreading heresy.

As well, the later mentions make much more sense if you recognize that first the Church understood the types of Mary as Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, the Church, etc… in the preceding centuries, which beget much more strongly the idea of her Assumption. Hence the Juniper Carol treatment I linked to earlier that goes into a lot of that.

 

[Perplexity]

We agree, the seeds must be there. I also agree with those who think it is telling that there was no dispute once an Assumption or Dormition was taught more succinctly, since there was always someone who campaigned against a spreading heresy.

Actually, I think it was condemned. I’m sure you’re familiar with the ol’ argument that the earliest claim to Mary’s Assumption is in the Transitus Literature which was condemned as heretical by several popes.

As well, the later mentions make much more sense if you recognize that first the Church understood the types of Mary as Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, the Church, etc… in the preceding centuries, which beget much more strongly the idea of her Assumption. Hence the Juniper Carol treatment I linked to earlier that goes into a lot of that.

Sure, I’m familiar with Carol. I just don’t see how these arguments make it probable that the Assumption of Mary (in seed form) is present in the Deposit. Seems more likely that people began to wonder about Mary’s body (as Epiphanius indicates), and given things like Marian typology, a belief in the Assumption eventually bloomed. None of this requires believing it’s in the deposit.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

I accept the Assumption. However, a Protestant friend of mine does not. He has asked what the Church uses as ‘evidence’ for the doctrine. I’m a bit stumped. Any help is much appreciated!

There is no “evidence” for the assumption other than the Catholic Church teaches it. Consequently, unless one chooses to embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church they will naturally reject the assumption.

It’s tough for a Protestant to grasp because typology is so often alien to them, such as Mary as the new Eve, the Ark of the Covenant

Especially if a Protestant rejects Mary being the new Eve and the Ark of the Covenant because they find such teachings as being completely foreign to Scripture.

How about the lack of evidence? There are no first class relics of the Theotokos. I’m pretty sure the early Christians would have kept those first class relics of the Mother of God

The lack of evidence is a weak argument. For instance, should we “assume” that Amelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa, D.B. Cooper, and the Roanoke Colonists were assumed into heaven because we lack their remains?

Except for St Mary Mother of God. The belief in the Assumption was so universal

It wasn’t universal for the first 500 years of church history…

Well, we as Catholics believe she was sinless. If you believe that, then it stands to reason that she would not have tasted death, which is the penalty for sin, and was therefore assumed into Heaven. Now you just need to prove her sinlessness to your Protestant friend

Mary’s supposed sinlessness cannot be “proven” by Scripture. Therefore any knowledgable Sola Scriptura adherent will dismiss your argument as conjecture built upon a false presumption.

I am not sure why there was the hostility toward Mary. If I had to guess, I would say it was nothing more than part of an anti-Catholic bias

I don’t find any hostility toward the mother of our Savior within Protestant circles, but rather a rejection of the false teachings surrounding her.

I think whatever the evidence is, it must make it probable that the Assumption of Mary is an item within the Deposit of Faith (sealed at the death of the last Apostle).

How can a supposed assumption of Mary be a deposit of the faith sealed at the death of the last Apostle when not a single Apostle ever taught, wrote about, or mentioned such a thing?

So if the magisterium defines anything infallibly, that thing must be contained within the Deposit of Faith. Since Mary’s assumption was declared ex cathedra, it follows that it is an item in the Deposit of Faith.

Not an item that was found within the *"Faith which was **once for all delivered *unto the saints" in Jude 3.

But the fact is Mary died, was resurrected by Christ, then assumed into heaven. That has been the longstanding tradition of the Church

Yet a teaching completely absent from Patristic thought for 500 years after Mary’s death.

Enoch and Elijiah were clearly assumed into heaven and Paul tells us that Enoch pleased God. Mary pleased God enough that she became the Mother of God, so why couldn’t Mary be assumed into heaven as well?

Again, another argument from silence. God declared Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven.

Noah pleased God, should we assume he was assumed into heaven?

The Apostle Paul stated the Thessalonican Church pleased God;

Finally, then, brothers,we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. 1 Thess 4:1

Should we assume the entire church at Thessalonica were assumed?

The Preacher of Hebrews proclaimed;

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13:20-21

Are we to assume that every believer in Christ Jesus who did things that were *pleasing in His sight *were or will be bodily assumed in heaven upon their death???

If not proof, Elijiah’s and Enoch’s assumption fits your Protestant friend’s demand for “Evidence” pretty clearly.

In Elijah and Enoch’s case it does, but it provides zero evidence for an assumption of Mary.

What we must believe is that she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven.

Again I ask, Why must “we” believe something that has no biblical, patristic, or historical evidence?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

There is no “evidence” for the assumption other than the Catholic Church teaches it. Consequently, unless one chooses to embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church they will naturally reject the assumption.

Especially if a Protestant rejects Mary being the new Eve and the Ark of the Covenant because they find such teachings as being completely foreign to Scripture.

The lack of evidence is a weak argument. For instance, should we “assume” that Amelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa, D.B. Cooper, and the Roanoke Colonists were assumed into heaven because we lack their remains?

It wasn’t universal for the first 500 years of church history…

Mary’s supposed sinlessness cannot be “proven” by Scripture. Therefore any knowledgable Sola Scriptura adherent will dismiss your argument as conjecture built upon a false presumption.

I don’t find any hostility toward the mother of our Savior within Protestant circles, but rather a rejection of the false teachings surrounding her.

How can a supposed assumption of Mary be a deposit of the faith sealed at the death of the last Apostle when not a single Apostle ever taught, wrote about, or mentioned such a thing?

Not an item that was found within the *“Faith which was **once for all delivered ***unto the saints” in Jude 3.

Yet a teaching completely absent from Patristic thought for 500 years after Mary’s death.

Again, another argument from silence. God declared Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven.

Noah pleased God, should we assume he was assumed into heaven?

The Apostle Paul stated the Thessalonican Church pleased God;

Finally, then, brothers,we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. 1 Thess 4:1

Should we assume the entire church at Thessalonica were assumed?

The Preacher of Hebrews proclaimed;

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13:20-21

Are we to assume that every believer in Christ Jesus who did things that were *pleasing in His sight *were or will be bodily assumed in heaven upon their death???

In Elijah and Enoch’s case it does, but it provides zero evidence toward an assumption of Mary.

Again I ask, Why must “we” believe something that has no biblical, patristic, or historical evidence?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

I accept the Assumption. However, a Protestant friend of mine does not. He has asked what the Church uses as ‘evidence’ for the doctrine. I’m a bit stumped. Any help is much appreciated!

Actually, I think it was condemned.

Yes, it was.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the ol’ argument that the earliest claim to Mary’s Assumption is in the Transitus Literature which was condemned as heretical by several popes.

Here is documentation that supports this claim;

christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Yes, it was.

Here is documentation that backs up that claim.

christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html

 

[Georgia]

Mary was indeed saved. When conceived most pure and immaculate, wasn’t that God acting to save her from the very beginning of her existence? And its not because she sinned, but since we all are subject to the nature of the fallen world, we are all imperfect. But Mary was filled with God’s grace from the very beginning.

I was not completely clear in the way I explained the theories taught in my former church. They believed that Mary was no different from any one of us. Her salvation, they believed, came from a saving moment when she “accepted Jesus Christ as her personal savior” in a way no different from that of a person answering an altar call. The believed that Mary was a sinner before being saved, saved in the sense of OSAS. They also believed that she had children after Our Lord. To sum it up, they taught that Mary was a sinner who was saved when she put her faith in Jesus.

They do not view salvation as an ongoing process or that God prevented Mary from sin. In their view, a person is saved forever the moment he or she prays a sinner’s prayer, accepting Jesus, and there is no way to lose that salvation. They do not accept that Mary was filled with any special grace from the moment her life began.