Presumptions About Mary's Assumption into Heaven

It is my belief that belief in the Assumption of Mary is not unbiblical, nor does it contradict any historical mandate. I will revisit this topic below:

I. Mary's Assumption Does NOT Contradict Scripture
As part of the overall deposit of faith, Catholic Tradition cannot contradict Scripture, and the Assumption of Mary is no exception. For example, we know that that Enoch "walked with God; and he was not, for God took him" (Gen 5:24); he was translated so as not to see death (Heb. 11:5). Also, there was Elijah, who was taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot (2 Chron. 2:1-13). Therefore, that people could be "assumed" is not unbiblical.

One must remember that nothing unclean can enter into heaven (Rev 21:27). Recall also from the Old Testament that in order to enter the synagogue, a person must be free from the stain of generational sin. (Deut 23). Furthermore, God's instruments are placed in the holiest place - the Ark with the 10 Commandments was placed in the Dwelling (Ex 40). Aaron' rod, which was a figure of the blessed Virgin conceiving and giving birth to Jesus, was placed in the Dwelling, too (Num 17). This placement of the very figure that depicts Mary in the Dwelling is a figure of the Assumption, where the "Dwelling" is God's dwelling, or heaven.

It should require no stretch of the imagination, then, to consider that Mary, the handmaiden of the Lord (Lk 1:48, was one of God's instruments to be placed directly into God's dwelling, and, we see literally the Queen of heaven as Mary in Revelation 12.

We see, therefore, that there is absolutely no scriptural disagreement with Mary's Assumption.

II. Historical Perspective
Belief in Mary's Assumption is not without historical precedent, no matter what our Protestant brethren would claim. Epiphanius was discussing it as early as A.D. 377:

If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world." (Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23)

From this quote it is easy to see that the belief in Mary's Assumption was circulating "early", even if the dogma had not been formally defined yet. For example, close to Mount Zion was the "Tomb of Mary", built after the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in A.D. 336. People began to realize that there were no relics of Mary, or even an actual body present. The "Memory of Mary" became later the Catholic Feast of the Assumption of Mary". Although this might be considered an argument from silence, it is effective in demonstrating the current practices and customs of the time - and similarly, there was no statement against Mary's Assumption.

Many Protestants, however, insist that the Assumption is a "late" belief and therefore somehow invalidated. This is because they do not acknowledge the development of doctrine, i.e., God's truths are gradually revealed to us. Frankly, the "early-late" argument is a false dilemma, based upon completely arbitrary selection of beliefs. For example, Mary as the Mother of God was not developed until the 4th Century - does this mean it is "too late"?

The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son came in the Athanasian Creed in A.D. 400 - is this "too late", also? In fact, at the 2nd Council of Constantinople in A.D. 553, it was written:

" We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith." (Session I)

The doctrine on the dual humanity and divinity of Christ was not settled until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. - is this "too late"?

The simple fact is that arguments regarding the "lateness" of Mary's Assumption are arbitrarily inconsistent, and even irrelevant. For example, the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is very early, however, no Protestant acknowledges this inconsistency when debating the Assumption:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110])

In other words, Protestants are claiming that Mary's Assumption isn't "early enough", but continue to ignore the very "early" belief in the Real Presence - this is not consistent.

To further define such inconsistency, there are many other Protestant "distinctives" that didn't appear until Protestantism itself existed, like salvation by faith alone, a merely symbolic Eucharist and symbolic baptism, an Old Testament without the Deuterocanonicals, sola scriptura, the canon of the Bible, an "invisible church", Rapture, and so on.......

So, the Protestant objection to Mary's Assumption, by not being intellectually honest enough to apply the same criteria their own beliefs, is little more than historical revisionism.

---