How to defend the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

What are the best ways to defend this dogma? Thanks.

Robert Sungenis focuses on the authority of the Church. This seems like a smart approach to me.

I agree with this, even if it is Sungenis, who has gone off the deep end on some other subjects.

The Assumption can’t really be defended historically, since the first references to it are centuries after the event. This is one dogma for which the only support is to say that this is what the Church teaches.

I would also add to delve into the matter of typology. There is a good treatment in Pope Benedict’s book Daughter Zion. It’s a short book. I did a review of it here.

Where’s the grave?

Thanks for the interesting replies.
I think going with Sungenis on this issue gets a person sidetracked on many various issues.

I would prefer going with the Book of Revelation.

If I was dealing with an open minded friend I would prefer to first go into this issue through a back door issue. See


Ideally, both routes will be utilized. As a tactical decision, however, I would begin with the Sungenis approach so as to clearly reject any tacit acceptance or implication of the notion that authority by itself somehow doesn’t or shouldn’t suffice to settle the question. By opting for the authority-based argument, you’re reframing the debate onto friendlier and more accessible terms. This debate, which usually won’t entirely or immediately compel anyone wary of the Church’s authenticity, will at least prove a worthy challenge and make the Catholic’s alleged/assumed burden of Scriptural/logical/historical proof a lot lighter, perhaps even non-existent. (Notice how Sungenis wisely took the question put to him and flipped his own challenge onto Slick. Insofar as rhetorical skill goes, that’s a strong move.)

Then, after taking the offensive, I would strike with the more complex arguments for the doctrine as a clear supplement and rationale for the doctrine. Typically these debates aren’t settled right away, so by establishing the importance of authority in the beginning, you have a more obvious ground on which to “settle” in the event arguments from reason, history, etc., don’t end up resolving the dispute.

Mary had the cells of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, still in her long after he was born. Her body was still carrying divine DNA, so it could not decay. Upon her death her body and soul rose to heaven because of these cells. See link.
Son’s DNA Shows Up in Mom’s Brain*

Mary had the cells of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, still in her long after he was born. Her body was still carrying divine DNA, so it could not decay. Upon her death her body and soul rose to heaven because of these cells. See link.

Son’s DNA Shows Up in Mom’s Brain…mom-brain.html

Please tell me you aren’t for real?

Off topic: Is there anyone else who thinks Dr. Sungenis’ arguments over the overall are not really convincing when he is debating protestants? I watched some debates he had with James White on purgatory. He kinda came off as someone playing word games etc. without proper exegesis.

Here are a few of the basic passages that support Mary’s assumption:

Revelation 12:1 “And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun.” Verse 5: “She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.”

Psalms 45:9-10 “On your right stands the queen in gold of Ophir.” – This Psalm is a prophecy of Jesus according to Hebrews 1:8-9. And it says there will be a woman beside Him who will sit at His right hand.

“The New Eve” The early Christians compared Jesus to Adam and Mary to Eve because Adam and Eve were part of our fall while Jesus and Mary were part of our redemption. They were not subject to death because they were prepared by God to destroy death along with the sin of Adam and Eve which we inherit. Also, Adam and Eve would not have been subject to death if they had not disobeyed God. Jesus and Mary took the place of Adam and Eve in the New Covenant except they obeyed God’s will. They don’t inherit death because death is the result of the original sin.

“The New Ark” The early Christians also compared Mary to the Ark of the Covenant because the Ark of the Covenant carried the presence of God for the Israelites in the Old Testament, and Mary carried Jesus in the New Testament. 1 Kings 8:1-6 explains how the Ark was brought into Solomon’s Temple, and other Scriptures, including 2 Chronicles 6:41-42 and Psalms 132, say that this was a prophetic symbol of something the Messiah would do. Since Mary is the New Ark, this indicates that the Messiah was going to take His Mother into the New Temple – and that Temple is in heaven, Heb. 9:24, Heb. 8:5.

A historical argument for Mary’s Assumption is the argument from relics. The argument from relics is that we possess no relics of Mary’s body. We know from books like the Martyrdom of Polycarp (and the Acts of the Apostles) that relics of the early Church leaders were considered very venerable. Relics of Mary, therefore, would be specially prized. The Apostles’ bones and relics are visible in various places today, but no bodily relics have ever been claimed of Mary. This indicates that everybody knew her body was in heaven.

I think there is good historical evidence for Mary’s assumption. Here is a thread that submits some of the historical evidence for Mary’s assumption:

Here’s a 12 min video. Approx 9 minutes into the video you’ll see the defense for Mary as queen, in heaven.

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