Who's making assumptions?

A Christian friend insists that Catholic doctrines like the Assumption of Mary were invented by superstitious popes.

Well the pope is not a magician who pulls dogmas out of his hat like some parlour trick designed to fool the ignorant.

Sometimes, the reason we don’t see something is because we’re looking in the wrong place. Other times, preconceptions and prejudices can blind us to the scriptural evidence exposed before us.

Police investigations often require the help of forensic science to uncover truths that are hidden beneath the ordinary. Likewise, divine truths must be unveiled through the lens of Christian tradition and understanding. What the bible doesn’t disclose immediately to the casual reader can nevertheless be full of evidence that reveal themselves only after the clues have been pieced together.

As the prophet Elijah discovered, God’s voice is loudest in its silence. It wasn’t in the violent thunder of earthquakes and fires rattling mountains that Elijah heard the voice of God, but in the almost indiscernible whisper of a breeze.

In the same way, if we scour the bible looking for colourful neon signs that point to this doctrine with a big pulsating arrow that says, ‘Look, here are the words, “assumption of Mary”’, then we shall risk the blindness of the Scribes and Pharisees who saw their King before them in the dusty sandals of a carpenter and recognised Him not, just because He didn’t fit the image of the King they were so used to conceiving.

But before we’re ready to plumb the depths of Holy Scripture for answers to this question, it might help to differentiate between the words “dogma” and “doctrine” which can be utterly confusing to many people.

“Dogma” is just a fancy theological word for what Christians accept to be apostolic teaching from the earliest days of the Church; namely a timeless and eternal truth as it were. It is understood by Catholics to be part of the original deposit of faith as handed down by the Apostles. To explain it simply, it is not a new teaching but rather an old teaching with apostolic roots and foundation.

A doctrine on the other hand is the articulation of a dogma to make it more accessible for common understanding. Consequently when the Church teaches a doctrine, she is in fact explaining the divine mysteries behind a dogma.

At this point, it is important to understand that the pope cannot proclaim a "new" dogma. In fact, no one can. Dogmas have always existed within the original revelations of Christ, even though the precise teaching and articulation of this revelation is constantly made clearer for generations through the illumination of the Holy Spirit who guides the universal teaching office of the Church.

Imagine for instance a perfect diamond lying in the shadow of a tree. Even in the half-light of the sun, it shines resplendent for all to see and admire. However, as the day progresses and light washes over its surface, the diamond sparkles with greater clarity and magnificence as it transmits the powerful rays of the sun to our eyes. In this case, matter itself is not changed; the diamond remains the same as it was before. The only difference being that the progression of time has brought more light to the nature of the gem, giving it more brilliance and illumination.

Similarly, the progression of time and development of doctrine gives the Church more precise understanding and clarity in order to better articulate and strengthen an existing belief.

Therefore, the “Assumption of Mary” like all dogmas of the Church must be understood in the context of this ancient and apostolic tradition. We should understand that it is not a new dogma that Pope Pius XII "invented" when he proclaimed it back in 1950, but rather an ancient and widely accepted belief of the early Church that His Holiness merely reiterated for later generations as bearing apostolic truth.

The Assumption of Mary is probably the oldest feast of Our Lady. After all, there is a very ancient tradition in Christianity that teaches that because of her exalted position as Mother of the Redeemer, Mary enjoys the reward of the bodily assumption with Jesus. This is testified to by the practice of the early Christians in Jerusalem who began celebrating her passing or “falling asleep” as far back as the 4th century.

In a culture that guarded the relics and remains of Christian personalities jealously, it was highly peculiar that no relics of Mary were ever reported to exist. In fact, all agreed that the presence of an empty tomb near the site of her death suggested that her remains were not left on earth, which led no less a personage than the Patriarch of Jerusalem to remark at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

In other words, early Christians have always believed that there were at least two human bodies in heaven - Jesus and Mary - glorified as they are in the mystery of the resurrection. If a bible fundamentalist is scandalised by that thought, the following argument might help calm his gasping breath.

First, scripture records at least two other people who might also have enjoyed bodily assumption; one of whom was Elijah who was taken up in a fiery chariot at the end of his life, disappearing before the very eyes of his disciple Elisha. The other is mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews: “It was because of his faith that Enoch was taken up and did not have to experience death: He was not to be found because God had taken him. This was because before his assumption it is attested that he had pleased God. Now it is impossible to please God without faith, since anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and rewards those who try to find him.” (Hebrews 11: 5-6)

Clearly it would seem that Paul at least believed that the prophet Enoch was assumed into heaven for having lived a life of grace and obedience. And since Paul himself was a former Pharisee, he must've been recalling a Jewish tradition widely held throughout Judea, especially since he was writing to Jewish converts to Christianity. So even in scripture we discover precedence for this unusual gift. When it came to Elijah and Enoch, Paul and the Jews certainly believed in the theological concept of the Assumption.

Now if such were the rewards given to prophets, we must ask ourselves: “How much more applicable is this to the Mother of the Redeemer - she who was full of grace and the handmaid of the Lord?”

Mary above all pleased God more perfectly than any disciple did or ever can. Hence if we can accept that God’s prophets enjoyed such a privilege, why should we object to the Mother of God deserving even more? Why indeed should Christians be scandalised by the blessing shown to this humble woman who not only loved Christ intimately as only a mother can, but who faithfully stood by her divine son to the very end?

Many cynics find it difficult to accept that God could possibly show such great love and respect for a creature by exalting her as the paradigm of all human perfection; raising her before every man, woman, child and angel by making her His mother, His queen, His spouse and the mother of His Church.

Instead too many people cling to worldly ideals of human respect; which is often nothing more than the cry of a familiar serpent coiled around a tree who once whispered to another woman, “Take and eat, and you will be like God”.

True womanhood can only find its real meaning and genuine beauty in the light of Mary’s womanhood, intended by God and exalted above all creation to reflect His glorious wisdom. Just as true manhood can only find its expression in the person of Christ the man, who though God, placed himself at the succour and guidance of this little lady from Nazareth.

Did not scripture reveal that every person righteous in Christ is also a child of Mary, since Revelation 12 vs. 17-18 in describing how the Dragon in trying to devour the Woman’s first-born, also made war against all those who were marked with the sign of the lamb and who believed in Jesus, for these too were among her children?

Yes, it's true that many Protestant Christians traditionally interpret the symbol of the “woman” as pertaining to the church, but the Early Apostolic Fathers have always maintained this to be a reference to Mary.

Bishop Theoteknos of Livias (c.550-650) preached centuries ago that: "Christ took His immaculate flesh from the immaculate flesh of Mary, and if He had prepared a place in heaven for the Apostles, how much more for His mother; if Enoch had been translated and Elijah had gone to heaven, how much more Mary, who like the moon in the midst of the stars shines forth and excels among the prophets and Apostles? For even though her God-bearing body tasted death, it did not undergo corruption, but was preserved incorrupt and undefiled and taken up into heaven with its pure and spotless soul."

These scriptural and historical hints alone give us much to ponder about. But these are only the beginning. For those who persist in their quest for truth, there is an even more impressive trail of evidence supporting it.

The Assumption isn’t a reward reserved exclusively to Our Blessed Mother alone. In fact, this glorious assumption is promised to all faithful disciples at the final resurrection. This too is our inheritance and our privilege. Our bodies will likewise be taken up on the last day and be gloriously transformed in the new life of Christ.

What Mary enjoys now in the bodily assumption must be understood and celebrated as the first fruit of Christ’s resurrection; a fulfillment of the promise made to all of God’s children as an inheritance, but given much sooner to His Mother owing to her dignity as Queen of Heaven.

Now it is not at all presumptuous to infer this. After all, if her Son is King, surely she is Queen.

Many Christians are often surprised to discover that in ancient Israel, it was not the wife of the King who was crowned and acknowledged as Queen. Instead, it was the mother of the King who was more commonly exalted upon a throne and given a place in the government of his kingdom.

If this was true for Solomon the son of David - “Bathsheba therefore went to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. The king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself to her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand” (1 Kings 2:19), it is true for Jesus the true King of Israel who descended from the line of David.

Just as Solomon exalted and honoured his mother as Queen of his kingdom, so too Jesus exalted His mother and honoured Her as Queen of His Eternal Kingdom. Remember that one of the basic Judeo commandments beholden of a son is to honour father and mother. That is inscribed in the Ten Commandments, which was the spiritual backbone of the Mosaic Law. And in Christ’s own words, Our Lord came not to condemn the law but to fulfill the law.

Thus in order to fulfill this commandment to honour His father, Jesus had to glorify His Heavenly Father. But as a faithful Jew, Our Lord was also bound in conscience to do the same for His earthly mother, and who would deny that Jesus was a good son if not the best?

If Solomon the wise; a mere man in the shadow of God’s wisdom, could sense that it was right to glorify God by honouring his mother as Queen, can we not give Jesus the Messianic King more credit? Even Adonijah in scripture, (knowing the son’s love and reverence for his mother), had the good sense to implore the intercession of Bathsheba with King Solomon “for he will not say no to you” (1 Kings 2: 17)

As if this wasn’t enough to convince us, let us also remember that Jesus can claim no human heritage other than the same DNA structure that genetically describes Mary. To put it bluntly, He has no body, blood nor bones apart from His mother's. In fact, He owes His human existence to her. How then can one be separated from the other?

Which brings us to the next point in this discussion - the wonderful link between the dogma of “The Assumption of Mary” and the dogma of “The Immaculate Conception”. In fact, understanding one helps us to understand the other. (By the way, the Immaculate Conception refers to the doctrine that Mary was conceived without original sin and not the virgin birth of Jesus, as some mistakenly believe).

In many ancient cultures and societies, your bloodline was a matter of reprove or nobility in some parts of the world. As such, can you imagine the theological implications if Mary was born in original sin like the rest of us; a slave to Satan so to speak?

By genetic association, if Mary was not spared of original sin, then Jesus obviously would have inherited the spiritual marks of that deformity in His human character. In effect, the Son of God would be tainted with the sin of slavery from the first moment of His conception, which would have allowed Satan to eternally mock the redemptive mission of Christ by alluding to His less than royal heritage. Needless to say, how can he who was not free and innocent of guilt himself offer freedom or pardon to others in chains?

Thankfully, the opposite is true. Because Mary was indeed preserved from all stain of original sin, Jesus is thus described in scripture as being "like us in all things except sin."

If the Ark of the Covenant was made out of gold and precious metals to signify the purity and awesome status of the tabernacle that housed the Ten Commandments carried by Moses, what more the living, breathing Ark of the New Covenant that conceived, nourished and carried the living Son of God for nine months?

Mary is the new ark, the new tabernacle of grace and the holy of holies.

As children, we cannot choose our parents. We accept whom we’re given. But if you could choose to make your own mother, if you had the power to do just that, would you make her tainted, fallen, a slave to sin or would you make her pure, perfect and glorious? As it happened, Jesus had the power to create His own mother. And how do you think He made her?

Does this mean that she had no need of a saviour since she was conceived without sin? Christian fundamentalists are quick to point out that Mary herself alluded to God as her saviour in the Magnificat prayer, meaning that she too needed to be saved from sin like the rest of us.

How true! But there are two ways to save someone. One is to save them after they have fallen. The other is more meritorious and perfect, which is to save them before they even fall, preventing even the slightest bit of harm to come to them.

Now which is better? To pull someone out from quicksand after they have fallen in, or to save them from danger in the first place by rescuing them before it happens? Both however require the act of saving, and early Christians have always believed that Mary was saved from sin by her Son before she was even born; when she existed from all time as a perfect thought in His mind, a perfect love in His heart.

Would you not do the same if you could? Likewise, the dogma of The Assumption is based on the same principle.

Death is the tragic result of sin. And because of the original sin of Adam and Eve who stood in the place of humanity, we too bear in our flesh the penalty and mark of their rebellion and return to dust and ashes, whence originally we were made to live immortally with God. Consequently when people say that death is natural, we wonder why so many fear it and the world fights feverishly to prevent or postpone the inevitable. It’s almost as if our instincts recoil in horror against something that our souls deem to be unnatural.

Reading this, one could be forgiven for thinking that because Mary was immaculately conceived, we're implying that she was spared from the sting of mortal death by default. In reality, that’s not the case at all.

A disciple is not above her master and Mary is certainly not above her Lord and saviour, Jesus. If anything, she would not hesitate to share in the burden of atoning for mankind as her divine son did. She above all other creatures would imitate her Lord to the end. And although early Christian traditions tell us that she died a peaceful death, it is not inconceivable to imagine the great spiritual martyrdom she endured in offering her own life with Him and through Him on the cross.

It was not for nothing that the prophet Simeon foretold that a sword would pierce her own heart. The question then isn't so much whether Mary died but whether her sacred remains were allowed to rest in death, and the answer is quite obvious when we appeal to both reason and faith.

Consider that God commanded Moses to honour His symbolic presence by having the Israelites make the ancient Ark of the Covenant out of acacia wood: “And they shall make an ark of acacia-wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.” (Exodus 25 Vs.10-11)

And acacia wood as any decent carpenter will tell you is very resistant to insects and corruption. It doesn’t decay easily.

Now is it possible that God would desire that a wooden box containing some bits of stone and manna not decompose because it contained His symbolic presence, but He would allow the ravages of sin and death to devour the holy body that enclosed His divine Son for nine months and which lovingly succoured Him as a child?

There would be no justice if He did. Even the Book of Revelations when describing the Woman crowned with twelve stars on her head and the moon under her feet used language that described a physical body in heaven. Against this wealth of evidence, it comes as no surprise that the early Church Fathers taught the same.

For instance, St John Damascene living in the 8th century once preached a sermon at the memorial of Mary in Jerusalem with these words, “Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.”

Of course, we expect that some Christians will continue to scrupulously ask for explicit mention of this belief in the bible. Yet scripture itself admits there are facets of our Christian religion that are not clearly expounded in the official texts of the bible, but nevertheless remain part of the oral deposit of faith as handed down by the apostles.

As highlighted in the Gospel of John, Jesus said and did many things that were not recorded simply because the vast number of these details were too numerous to write down, but only enough was written that we may believe in Jesus as the Christ. In other words, the bible IS authoritative but NOT the only authority.

We can't emphasise enough that the legitimacy of the bible is dependent on the authority of the Catholic Church, since it was the Church that organised and compiled the bible into its present form as a spiritual legacy for the world. For this reason, things are in the bible only because the Catholic Church teaches it first. The Church doesn’t teach it only because it can be found in the bible. It is essential for us to understand this historical and objective truth because there are Christians who will not accept anything that they cannot find literally in their bibles.

To stubbornly cling to such fundamentalism would oblige us to reject traditional beliefs like the dogma of the Trinity as well since the word itself cannot be found in scripture and the teaching is only implicitly referenced. Remember that Jesus never explicitly taught the Trinity. It was the Catholic Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that imparted the doctrine of the Trinity based on its authoritative understanding of the Lord’s teachings.

In brief, it is always the Bible and the Church that are the pillars and foundations of our faith.

Thus when Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption of Mary in 1950, he was doing nothing more than affirming as official Catholic belief what Christians have always held to be a definitive truth. In fact, the Orthodox and Eastern Churches also continue to teach this doctrine which goes to show how ancient this belief really is, since these Churches separated from Rome way back in the first millennium.

Mary’s Assumption as glorious as it was is nothing less than a shining example of encouragement to all Christians to persevere in faithfulness so that we may share in our mother’s joy one day. And even though some people may still claim that the bible denies this ancient belief, history, tradition, common sense and even scripture itself say otherwise.

Too often, we tell God what He can do and what He can’t instead of thanking Him for what He has done. And what He has done is to raise Mary body and soul into heaven, so that where the Son is, the Mother may be also, alive and glorious in His resurrection.

Tell me, which loving son would not do the same?