CHALLENGING mary's assumption


Catholics, unlike Protestants, make no claims that the Bible is the ONLY source of Christian knowledge.

For example, the Bible does not refer to the Trinity. The doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one in being, did not come about until the Council of Nicea (thus the Nicene Creed) in 325. If you say the Nicene Creed, or refer to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you are embracing an extra-Biblical doctrine. Would you agree that this DOES NOT mean that you are not a Christian?


Because—say it aloud together, people:

Catholic doctrines are not defined until violated.


2 pope’s who declared the Gnostic document heretical does’nt count? :shrug:

Hmmm, what was a Gnostic heresy in the fifth century becomes “orthodox” in 7th century? :frowning:


Wrong again, Kaycee:

Pseudo – Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian

The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

We can assume from the above that the belief by Christians in Mary’s Assumption was older even than these quotes, since none of the writers purport to be introducing anything new. Also, along with this early witness, we hear of no protest among Christians to this doctrine until well after the beginning of the Deformation.


I don’t see anything that says it’s based solely on the TBM. If it were then kaycee might have a good case…but that is not so.


Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. 

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.


Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady’s death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis.

According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). In Egypt and Arabia, however, it was kept in January, and since the monks of Gaul adopted many usages from the Egyptian monks (Baeumer, Brevier, 163), we find this feast in Gaul in the sixth century, in January [mediante mense undecimo (Greg. Turon., De gloria mart., I, ix)]. The Gallican Liturgy has it on the 18th of January, under the title: Depositio, Assumptio, or Festivitas S. Mariae (cf. the notes of Mabillon on the Gallican Liturgy, P. L., LXXII, 180). This custom was kept up in the Gallican Church to the time of the introduction of the Roman rite. In the Greek Church, it seems, some kept this feast in January, with the monks of Egypt; others in August, with those of Palestine; wherefore the Emperor Maurice (d. 602), if the account of the “Liber Pontificalis” (II, 508) be correct, set the feast for the Greek Empire on 15 August.


You are mistaken about Pseudo Melito. It was a Gnostic forgery, assigned to Bishop Melito of Sardis who had been dead for many hundreds of years.

“5th century: Earliest accounts of the Death of Mary or Transitus Mariae. Appeared in Latin as the Pseudo-Melito and the Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea.”

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

“The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).”


That’s right, it doesn’t count. The Gnostic document probably also mentioned something about Christ being Lord, Savior, Son of God, King of Kings, the Messiah. Does that invalidate those claims also? Did it mention the Apostles? Does that mean they didn’t exist? Does the document mention God? Does that mean the atheists are right?

Why don’t you post a link to the document and we can all search it to see what true things it might say about Christ and the Christian faith. Might be fun.


Allowing for a second that your references are accurate, you still have the other quotes to deal with. :slight_smile:


An excellent and detailed article on the subject:



Assumption is not the same phenomenon as Ascension. Ascension is rising under one’s own power. Jesus alone “ascended” into heaven by His own power, “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man,” John 3:13. Assumption is the passive event of being taken by God. Scripture shows that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses were “assumed” or taken bodily into heaven, which is what Catholics believe happened also to Mary.

“Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him,” Gen. 5:23-24.

“And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” 2 Kings 2:11.

“But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you,’” Jude 9.

Notice that Assumption does not mean that the person did not die. Enoch and Elijah were assumed while still alive, but Moses, in contrast, had already died when his body was assumed into heaven. Assumption therefore can be of either a living person or a dead body.

The Catholic Church takes no position on whether or not Mary died. Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII’s ex cathedra statement made on November 1, 1950 which formally defined the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption, states: “…that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory,” MC 44. Since no position is taken on whether or not Mary died, Catholics may believe that she, like Enoch and Elijah, was assumed without death, or that she died and her body was assumed, like that of Moses. Either way, Biblical precedent shows that Mary was not the first person to have been granted this blessing.


Three persons being the one God??? :nope: The spirit is present, and descends upon Jesus, sure. But John and many others were also present, doesn’t mean they were one or were God.

And the spirit is nowhere in scripture implied to be both a distinct person* and *actually God.


I have heard others say “Jesus and Mary shared blood”; Dr. Ray Guarendi and Fr. Corapi. But babies do NOT share their mother’s blood, unless youmean “blood” = “genetic material” or DNA.

The mother’s blood (corpuscles and plasma) does not pass through the umbilical cord, AFAIK. Please correct me if this is wrong. Some antibodies may be passed. I am not up to snuff on the RH factor which can cause complications at birth.

Just want to be clear on this point. I do not think it is trivial.

Interesting thread. I’ll be back later!



kc << Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian >>

William Webster is simply lying about Juniper Carol. I’ve had the photocopied sections of his Mariology (3 volumes) on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption for a number of years, and only recently typed up the sections on the Assumption. What Fr. Burghardt says (he is the author of the articles in those volumes on the eastern and western Fathers on Mary, not Juniper Carol who is the editor of the volumes) is that the Transitus is “valueless” as strict history, but nonetheless significant and priceless both historically and theologically. Here is what Webster does not and won’t quote:

Burghardt: “This account is significant, in the first instance, because it affirms unequivocally the death and burial of Mary, the reunion of her soul and body without delay, and her assumption into heaven in soul and body. It is significant, in the second place, for the developed Assumption theology which links this privilege causally with Mary’s Maternity and virginity, and stresses the parallelism which ought to exist between Christ and His Mother in victory over death. The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste. But the account is priceless nonetheless – historically and theologically. Historically, because it witnesses indisputably to the feeling of the faithful for Mary, a growing awareness of her dignity, even though we are unable to specify the full range of this awareness geographically or even to indicate its dawning. Theologically, because it postulates the Assumption on grounds that are valid not simply for piety but for scientific theology as well.” (Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 149-150, emphasis added)

Burghardt: “What is the value of these witnesses? As historical accounts of an actual event – Mary’s death, her translation, her Assumption – by individuals who were personally present, or else were in contact with the events through unimpeachable sources, the Transitus literature is valueless. But theologically the tales are priceless. They reveal the reaction of early Christian piety when confronted with the apparent fact of Our Lady’s death; they evidence the first unequivocal solutions to the problem of Mary’s destiny. The solutions, though divergent, disclose a genuinely Christian insight: it was not fitting that the body of Mary should see corruption. More importantly, the solution is given, incorruption is postulated, on theological lines: the principles of solution are the divine Maternity, Mary’s unimpaired virginity, her unrivaled holiness…” (Carol Mariology, volume 2, page 145-146, see above, emphasis added)

That is what Juniper Carol says (specifically Fr. Burghardt) and you and Webster can now apologize to Carol and Burghardt. This goes to show – you cannot trust William Webster. Look up what he quotes, please!

For a scholarly treatment of the so-called “Transitus literature” you want to get Shoemaker’s thorough study Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford Univ Press, 2006 paperback). And throw Webster into the garbage can where he belongs. :mad:

Phil P

Evidence for the Assumption

That is the case in normal pregnancies because babies get half their genetic material from their father, and so their DNA is a unique blend and the characteristics of their blood different from that of their mother.

Jesus HAD no human father, and God the Father doesn’t have genes or DNA either, so all of Christ’s physical matter, including his blood, could really have come only from Mary.


It’s real simple. The Church teaches it, I wasn’t there to see it, it is logical that Jesus would do such a thing for His Mother, therefore…I believe it. :amen:



heisenburg, post:18, topic:82916"]
There are several key things to understand here when discussing the assumption of Mary.

[quote]1) First and foremost, the original poster is absolutely correct. The Assumption of Mary is NOT in the bible…

The eighteenth poster is absolutely incorrect. The Assumption of Mary IS in the Bible. See Psalm 132:8, Rev:11.19,12:1



ok, i hear u. what i am saying is that Marys assumption is NO WHERE EVEN MENTIONED. at least the trinity is. and besides, i wasnt asking about that so dint answer a question with a question. also, i believe elijah was assumed because it was mentioned in the bible. MARY’S ASSUMPTION ISNT!!!


firstly, Psalm 132:8 is not talking about mary, its in the old testament. 2 Cor. 12:2 Paul is talking about himself. Rev is still interpreted differently by bible scholars TODAY. even if Rev. 12:1 is about Mary, it dosent say she ascended. all the other verses are just far too random for me to even bother stating their irrelevance. you cant deny that the bible does NOT AT ALL mention Mary’s assumption, not even hint it.


The whole argument about Mary’s assumption being recorded in Scripture is mute…unless you can prove to us Catholics why it needs to be recorded in Scripture to believe it in the first place.


really, ive never heard of this. what church? since when?
if you are talking about the Catholic church then you should realise they are the only christians who teach this.

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