In Defense of My Mother- Assumption 4 of 4

Here we go, the last wave of attacks against Mary (for now, at lest). This time, the attacks are leveled against her assumption. I'm not going to prove that Mary was assumed into Heaven (I've attempted that here). Instead, I just want to defend the doctrine against these objections/attacks. These objections/attacks were posted on a Fundamentalist's blog, and illustrate the regular 'talking points' of Fundamentalists. The result is bad logic, bad theology, and a lack of Scriptural knowledge. Quotes are in bold and orange, my defense is in regular print.




— According to Catholic doctrine, at the end of her life, Mary was taken up (assumed) body and soul into Heaven.

Right on!

_____There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary. The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn't John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it? When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it. With Elijah it was recorded in some detail. (See Genesis 6:24 and 2 Kings 2:1 18.)

It would seem like an important thing to record, except for the fact that many important things are not recorded in Scripture. Surely Jesus did something worth noting between the Finding in the Temple and His public ministry! But none of it is recorded.

And let's take that logic to the extreme. I think we can all agree that St. Thomas died. But it's not recorded in Scripture. Does that mean it didn't happen? No, of course he died. It would have been a significant event, too, because he was an apostle and died a martyr's death. Even though Scripture doesn't record it, St. Thomas nevertheless died. Furthermore, not all amazing and miraculous things are recorded in Scripture. In Mark 16:17-18 the Apostles are given the authority to perform miracles in Jesus' name, even performing greater miracles than the ones Jesus Himself performed (John 14:12); and yet, we hear nothing of the fate of most of these apostles after Pentecost. Surely not all of their miracles are recorded in the Bible. Even many of Jesus' own miracles aren't found in Scripture according to John 20:30.

But when would John have recorded it? It wouldn't be in the Gospels, as those focus almost exclusively on Christ, His ministry, life, death, and resurrection. It wouldn't have been in his epistle, as he's writing not to inform but to instruct. It wouldn't have been in Revelatiooohh wait, he did record it!

As St. Robert Bellarmine said, "who could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit [i.e., Mary], crumbled into dust? I shudder at the very thought that the virginal flesh of which God was conceived and born, which nourished him and carried him should have turned to ashes or been given as food to worms." Revelation 12:1-2, 5, 17 records Mary, and symbolically combines her with the Church and the Ark of the Covenant. So yeah he didn't record the event as a historical event in any of his writings that are in Scripture, he nevertheless does her (bodily) in Heaven.

The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it.

That's only kind of true. We are required to believe it, but we can question it. I'd be surprised if there were a lot of Catholics who didn't, at one time or another, question this belief or that belief. In fact, it is often this questioning that leads Catholics to discover more about the Faith.

However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics.

Wrong wrong wrong. Pope Gelasius I condemned an apocryphal writing that contained the Assumption in it, but not the Assumption itself. There is a large difference! Popes have condemned apocryphal writings that contained stories on Christ, but that doesn't mean that he's condemning a belief in Christ! So, sorry, but our Fundamentlist bro obviously does not have a degree in history (or the time to check facts).

In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

This is why it's important to cite claims made against someone, because then he or she can look to see what the heck you're talking about. Like Pope Gelasius I, Pope Hormisdas mainly fought against those people and schisms that sought to deny the Chair of St. Peter (like some of the Eastern Bishops). But I can find nothing where he condemned the Assumption (or even an apocryphal book that contained the Assumption which was condemned, as was the case with Pope Gelasius I). The book, not the belief, was condemned.

What did the early Church have to say in regards to the Assumption?

The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have infallible popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another infallible pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine.

Sorry, but our Fundamentalist friend doesn't know what criteria must be met for infallibility to occur. The Popes that condemned the apocryphal writings were not exercising Papal infallibility. Sorry, but they weren't. Furthermore, I think I've shown that the Popes did not condemn the Assumption.

Unfortunatly, our Fundamentalist writer says that "the early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation." That goes cleary against the actual evidence. From the beginning, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities proverbaly fought for the title of the last resting place of the most famous of these saints.In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were carefully guarded and certainly highly prized. For example, Rome claimed (and actually had) the tombs of Peter and Paul.

But what about Mary? Neither Jerusalem or Ephesus, both of which there is some debate to being the final resting place of Mary, claimed Mary's remains. In fact, no city claimed to have Mary's relics. What there way, however, was a vieing by both cities to claim the tomb of Mary... the empty tomb of Mary.

And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Because there weren’t any bones to claim! And people knew it. Here was Mary, the Mother of Christ, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated
anywhere.

There's also the liturgical evidence. If the Assumption wasn't believed by the early Christians (and certainly if it was rejected by them), then we would expect to find no mention of it in the Christian liturgy. But alas! One of the earliest feasts of the Church was the Dormition of the Theotokos (Assumption of Mary). What a silly thing to celebrate if you don't believe it.

All-in-all, the Assumption is not contrary to Scripture, is referenced in Scripture, was clearly believed by the early Church, and was never condemned by a Pope.

That does it for this volly against the 4 Marian dogmas. It's not always necessary to prove a dogma. Sometimes one just needs to defend a dogma, especially against people that will never accept an argument for a Catholic dogma.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4