ASSUMPTION of Saint Joseph?


I know that belief in St. Joseph’s bodily resurrection into heaven is not Catholic dogma, but I’m curious as to how many Catholics believe St. Joseph to be in heaven both soul and glorified body?
I am one who believes that he is. There are no relics of Mary, that is one proof of her assumption both soul and Body.
There are also NO relics of St. Joseph’s body. Now, I reason this way. In the early church many officials were relatives of Jesus (and hence of Mary and Joseph as well). Yet there is preserved no record whatsoever of where Joseph lies buried. And no Catholic has EVER claimed to have a relic of his dead body.
Add to that the fact that he (together with Holy Mary) literally
raised God as his own child, and we can begin to faintly grasp the incredible holiness and sanctity of this man. Yes, I believe St. Joseph is in heaven soul and resurrected body. Anybody else feel the same way?
God bless.


Could it be? Sure. Sounds like a nice thought. I just don’t have any reason to argue that it “must” be.



I feel this way too, although I have not thought too much about it to be honest.

Are we free to hold this speculation without being in error? I hope so, since I dont think its a violation to do so.

St. Joseph is brought up by my protestant friends a lot whenever I mention Mary. I just tell them that I am glad they Love St. Joseph too!:wink: and that usually ends the conversation.


Maybe this will be defined in the near future for all to believe as part of the Deposit of Faith.


There are not any relics probably because according to popular tradition, he died before Christ started his ministry. He was just a nobody when he died. Are there any relics of John the Baptizer?


If you mean St. John the Baptist?

Yes. The EOC has a hand I think.


Isn’t death one of the consequenses of original sin?


Yeah but God can do what He will.

He seems to have taken a couple of folks up to heaven body and soul in the old testamant?



I have a question but before I ask it I am not looking for a debate because I personally dont know enough to debate the topic. Plus it will throw off the thread.:o

If it is not difficult to believe that people were assumed into heaven body and soul then why is it so hard to believe in the rapture which really is the same thing except with much more people?

Please dont ask me questions on the theology of this because I dont know enough on the topic. I have not studied it out well enough to defend it.
Just curious what you guys think.:thumbsup:


There is no problem with the Rapture as far as God’s ABILITY to do such a thing. In the end, in fact, we will ALL have glorified bodies.

The Catholic church doesn’t disbelieve in the rapture out of any doubt of God’s ABILITY to do such a thing; it is rather the chiliastic, millenarian THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM of which the “Rapture” is a part, which the Catholic church does not accept.

God bless.


I don’t know that you can answer this fully without getting into the theology…but I will try. AFAIK only 3 people in the entire Bible were assumed into heaven. That would be Enoch, Elijah and Moses. Catholics believe that Mary was assumed into heaven also so that would bring the number to 4. So, throughout history the precedent has been established that Assumption into heaven is a very rare and special honor. So I, personally, would have a hard time believing that a large number of modern Christians would be assumed into heaven…why them? Why not anybody before them?


I don’t think there is any reason to believe that those alive when Christ comes in his glory, who are in communion with Christ can not be transformed Body and Soul into new creations.

It’s primarily the “when” this happens in the sequence of events that make up “end time” prophesy and other such matters that are more hottly disputed. (I think.)



Thank you for your answers:thumbsup:


That is interesting you mention that, since I asked that question to a Protestant friend in reverse, “why cant you accept Mary’s assumption , yet you think you will be?”

I think she thinks she has some greater standing with Jesus but I dont know why. She could not explain it.


Hmm…I have heard that several prophecies say that St. Joseph’s body will be found Incorrupt near the end times.

So that’s why there are no major bodily relics. Being peacefully incorrupt in some hidden place is I believe his special priveledge in death (“a happy death” he is the patron of, which wouldn’t make as much sense if he came back to life already).

Joseph died before Jesus’s public ministry.

I believe only Christ and Mary resurrected early. The rest have to wait until the General Resurrection.

AFAIK only 3 people in the entire Bible were assumed into heaven. That would be Enoch, Elijah and Moses.

It is not a traditional Catholic belief that Moses was assumed. That is from an apocraphyl book, maybe vaguely referenced in the epistle of Jude…but the Bible makes it clear that Moses died and they knew originally where he was buried even, though they lost the location.

Enoch and Elijah are a different matter, as they have not died yet. They are not in glorified bodies, but are being preserved alive to come back as the two witnesses at the apocalypse, and then will be rewarded with the death in the streets of jerusalem foretold in Revelations, a glorious martyrdom (and then resurrect with everyone else)

New advent says:

3. Return of Enoch and Elijah

The belief that these two men, who have never tasted death, are reserved for the last times to be precursors of the Second Advent was practically unanimous among the Fathers, which belief they base on several texts of Scripture. (Concerning Elijah see Malachi 4:5-6; Sirach 48:10; Matthew 17:11; concerning Enoch see Sirach 44:16)

So they’re sort of a different bird. I believe only Jesus and Mary, sinless and concieved without sin, are glorified at the present moment…even if Joseph and John the Baptist never personally sinned and were sanctified in the womb.


The Assumption of Mary was due to her Immaculate Conception. Even though there are O.T. precedents, I think it assuming Jospeh was assumed should just be left as an assumption.

However, I do not have a problem believing that there was the original assumption of Joseph —when he assumed that Mary’s pregnancy was fishy. But that was cleared up by the angel in his dream-Thank God.



There were at least a couple saints who believed in the assumption of Joseph. I’m sorry but I don’t remember their names.


Unlike the Assumption of Mary, this isn’t a teaching that has been celebrated in the liturgical calendar of the Church since time immemorial.


This last sentence is one of my favourite bad arguments :smiley: - it is very weak :), because the same could be said of the Patriarch Noah. But what evidence of belief in the Assumption of Noah is there ? What reason - apart from lack of a reference to his being buried - is there to believe he was assumed ?

There is OTOH evidence (of a sort) for the Assumption of:
*]Julius Caesar[/LIST]As an assumption-story, it is irrelevant that the assumption of (say) Romulus into heaven is not in the Bible - neither, at one time, were the passages in the Bible that (wrongly or rightly) have been taken for assumption-stories; the important thing is the existence of the idea that Romulus, or Enoch (say) was said to be assumed. The existence of a text saying “Enoch was assumed” does not prove he was - texts are of many kinds. This is why literary genre, authorial intention, the history of the tradition, & the setting of the text within a tradition by which it is interpreted, are so important.

An example - there is no tradition in the Church that Isaiah the Prophet was assumed into heaven; despite the text “The Assumption of Isaiah”. The objections that his grave is known, & that he was sawn apart by King Manasseh of Judah, are not final; he could have been raised from the dead & assumed - there is just no reason to think he was. The A. of I. does not have a tradition of being interpreted as the record of an event - a sprinkling of testimonies to it would not make a tradition of testimony to it.

An unbroken succession of testimonies to the A. of I. as an event would be theologically significant - it would not by itself prove the truth, or even the orthodoxy, of such a belief; theological proofs are cumulative. That’s why the Bull defining the Assumption of Mary uses a variety of type of argument.

For St. Joseph’s Assumption, OTOH, there is only a sprinkling of testimonies - Francisco Suarez S.J. (1548-1617) favoured it; but, though he is one of the great names in Catholic theology, one theologian, no matter how gifted, orthodox, holy, distinguished, cannot speak for the whole Church. If all 30+ Doctors of the Church could be quoted in its favour, that would be a weighty argument - but not conclusive.

There is no
*]liturgical commemoration of it
*]moral unanimity of the Fathers for it
*]consensus of theologians in its favour
*]universal tradition of it
*]Biblical evidence for it[/LIST]- it’s like the Assumption of St. John: that was believed at one time by some; it is a pious legend.

There is a text about St.Joseph’s death at the age of 111 - it could be used as a counter-testimony to belief in his Assumption

Add to that the fact that he (together with Holy Mary) literally raised God as his own child, and we can begin to faintly grasp the incredible holiness and sanctity of this man. Yes, I believe St. Joseph is in heaven soul and resurrected body. Anybody else feel the same way?
God bless.

Is there a significant difference between:

*]1. Rearing the God-man in obedience to God’s declared Will
*]2. Living by faith from day to day in obedience to the same God’s Will made known by the (now glorified) Jesus Christ[/LIST][RIGHT]?[/RIGHT]

Materially, Jesus was as human as John the Baptist - it is the Identity of Jesus that makes Him different. And to perceive Who He is, needs faith, whether one is in the Holy Family, or is St. Paul, or lives 1000 years later. If St. Joseph had not had faith, to see God Incarnate with his eyes would have done him no good. It is faith, not bodily proximity to Jesus, that is crucial: as St. Augustine says of the BVM:

For to a certain one who said, “Blessed is the womb, which bare Thee,” He Himself made answer, “Yea, rather, blessed are they who hear the Word of God, and keep it.” Lastly, to His brethren, that is, His kindred after the flesh, who believed not in Him, what profit was there in that being of kin? **Therefore Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ.****Thus also her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh. **

[my **emphases]

Without faith in God, 1. would have been impossible


I never heard of any early church tradition to this effect, although the Eastern Christians may have more info. St. Joseph will certainly be resurrected bodily on the last day along with everyone else so that is Catholic dogma. There are not relics of a lot of saints, but that does not mean their bodies are in heaven. There are also no burial records for most of the humble people who died in the Holy Land in the first century, so what?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit