Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption


I’m new here, can anyone give me a Scriptural Basis for the Assupmtion of Mary?


Hi CWT, see this articles:


Thanks for the direction. I found the articles very interesting. As I mentioned in my meet and greet message, I have been looking into the apparitions of Mary for quite some time now. I suppose what I find disturbing about them is that some of the messages seem to me to fly right in the face of the Bible. The titles of Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix as well as Advocate, all claimed by the apparition, seem to be contrary to what the Bible teaches - that these titles should belong to Jesus alone. What is the final authority, the Bible, Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Church? How do we determine the truth when, say for instance, tradition and the Bible contradict each other? Do you have any thoughts or direction along these lines?

In His Love;



Hi, thanks CWT,

  1. First of all - the truth cannot contradict the truth.
  2. Jesus and his Word (the Bible) is the fullness of truth
  3. The Bible say (Jesus’ words) the Church Jesus founded has the authority to bind and loose (Mt 16,19) and also says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3,15)
  4. Since Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth it cannot teach something contrary to the truth (unless Jesus was worng)
  5. Therefore - tradition (Church’s teachings) and the Bible cannot contradict each other.

From the CCC:

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

*81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”*

As for Mary, the CCC doesn’t teach she’s a Co-Redemptrix!

969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

Hm, do you find those titles far-fetched? Is so, why? :confused:


Thanks for the reply. I suppose the sad and simple truth is that battle of the reformation is still taking place. Protestants and Catholics agree on many things, but their disagreements are as high and wide as Rocky Mountains and as vast as the Pacific.
I agree that the truth cannot contradict the truth, and I believe that truth is absolute and not relative. I also believe that the Bible is God’s inspired word and is most definitely the truth.
However, I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is not the strict domain of the Roman Catholic Church. On the contrary The Church that Jesus Christ founded is that group of people that have by faith given their hearts and life to Jesus Christ. The Jesus Christ that the Bible reveals to us. This group of people fall into all different kinds of “religions” or denominations whether they are Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, or otherwise.
Naturally, tradition has its place, and the study of the Bible is of such great import that it should not be taken on lightly. On the contrary, there are so many factors involved and it is of such great import that it requires much diligence. The study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Geek play a role as do the study of ancient civilizations, history, geography, and other subjects as well are all important.
However, I do not believe that this is the strict domain of the Roman Catholic Church and that only their interpretation is correct. Believe it or not, Protestants do have theologians who have dedicated their lives to these pertinent studies.
The Bible tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. Do you believe that history repeats itself? I do, and if we examine history close enough we find that man, or rather the powers that be, Civil, Religious, etc, do not seem to learn from their mistakes, but repeat them. Christ told that Pharisees that they nullified the word of God by their tradition. Could this possibly happen again?
You quote to me from the CCC. Since you are commanded by your Church to believe that this book is on the same level and equal in Authority as the Bible, then it must follow that it cannot contradict the Bible. Further, that CCC # 969 gives the title of , among others, Advocate and Mediatrix to the apparition that appears claiming to be the Mother of God. Granted that Hebrews tells us that we have an Advocate in Jesus Christ, but that it does not say only one advocate. However, 1 Timothy 2:5 explicitly tells us that; " there is ONE MEDIATOR between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." By definition this is a contradiction.
Note that I did not say that the Roman Church teaches that this apparition is a Co-Redemptrix, at least not yet, but that the apparition itself claims that title. To my knowledge this apparition has never denied that any other apparition was false. Does it then follow that perhaps the CCC should grant this title to the appearing as well? And, if it does not, then is the apparition lying?
I simply asked if anyone could give me a Scriptural reference for the Assumption of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ. I have never been able to find one. Also, while I have your attention, I would strongly advise that you look into the actual messages of the apparitions, you might be surprised.
And, finally, yes I do not only find the titles that the CCC give to the appariton far fetched, but blasphemous as well.

For His Glory,



Hm…maybe yes, maybe no as I think that

  1. we sometimes say the same thing but using a different language
  2. Protestants are usually criticizing the misrepresentation of the RCC.


Strangely enough, this is what the word catholic means (except for your last sentence):

Catholic comes from the Greek katholikos, the combination of two words, kata (concerning), and holos (whole). According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the word catholic comes from a Greek word meaning “regarding the whole,” or, more simply, “universal” or “general.” The word church comes from the Greek ecclesia, which means “those called out,” as in those summoned out of the world at large to form a distinct society. So the Catholic Church is made up of those called out and gathered into the universal society founded by Christ.

(from: <— look here for further info if you want)

However, church is Christ’s body to which you become joined by baptism.

If we are not to ignore the history and the first “people that have by faith given their hearts and life to Jesus Christ” a.k.a. the Chuch Fathers, we should also look on what they were teaching, shouldn’t we?
(It’s forbidden to quote when I can provide a link, sry)


Then you’re addressing not the RCC itself but Jesus’ giving the authority to her.

If you mean Mt 15 where Jesus criticizes Pharisses for “teaching as doctrines human precepts” (Mt 15,9) the things would be quite different then if the Church taught doctrines from the very authority and commandment of Jesus, wouldn’t it? :slight_smile: (Mt 16,19, Mt 28,18-20)

I believe it’s no contradiction. On the surface you’ll find contradictions in the Bible. You could claim then that also the Bible contradicts itself. I do not believe you believe that. Look here:


The apparitions are no official teaching. Mary is never worshiped in Catholicism. It is anathema.

Thank you for correspondence, CWT!


I simply asked if anyone could give me a Scriptural reference for the Assumption of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ. I have never been able to find one. Also, while I have your attention, I would strongly advise that you look into the actual messages of the apparitions, you might be surprised.
And, finally, yes I do not only find the titles that the CCC give to the appariton far fetched, but blasphemous as well.

For His Glory,


There is NO explicit reference of the Doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The belief came from the Tradition after She departed from this world and made it offficial on August 15, 1950 after arguing, debating, and praying for 19 centuries by the theologians or by the church. Pope Pius XII sent a consultation letters to some 1,000 cardinals in the world asking whether Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul, only 3 came in reply saying NO, the rest overwhelmingly say - “Let it be done unto Her.” Thus became a Dogma. And also dogmas has references from the Bible though not explicit. This proclamation is not however is based on popularity vote, this is the result of 1,900 years of studies from every generations until all arguments against it has been exhausted.

Records from old churches in Ephesus and elsewhere contains nothing how Mary died or where she was buried; not even a footnote in their church’s records. The apostles and disciples records were found but not Mary.

Dogma is infallilble. I don’t have time to explain, but I’ll leave others to continue the rest of the explanation of the belief of this particular doctrine.


Hi CWT; welcome to Catholic Answers Forums. I think you may get more replies if you post this question in the Apologetics forum instead of this one. The moderators can move it there if you contact one of them.


Others can better deal with the rest of your post, so I will just ask a question based on the quoted part above. Where did you get the impression that Catholics are commanded to believe that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is on the same level as and equal to Sacred Scripture? Can you point me to something issued by the Church that indicates that we are “commanded” to believe so?

The CCC is merely a book of the teachings of the Church; it is not Inspired Scripture. The Church has never taught that the CCC, as a book, is inspired or on par with Sacred Scripture.


Welcome to the forum CWT. I recommend you “search” with the word assumption. This topic has been covered a great deal here. The oral and written Sacred Traditions do not contradict one another, only our understanding of them makes them appear to contradict. I commend you for your efforts to understand. The written word of God was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that formed it. In separating it, Protestants have cut off half of the Divine Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles.
There are some of those teachings that are not directly found in scripture, the Trinity for instance, that are foundations of our Christian faith.

With regard to the co-mediatrix, yes, there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. But He has ordained that we should all share in His redeptive work. Mary has participated most fully, from the moment of His conception until this day. She is a model of what it is to bring others to Christ. Paul also writes about being a partaker in this ministry:

There is no distinction between what Mary has to say, and what Jesus has to say. Mary has died, and her life is hidden with Christ in God ( Col 3:3-4). Jesus is the true vine, and Mary is the true branch. He has ordained that she would have a share his mission of mediation.

2 Cor 5:17-21
17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Rom 5:11
11 Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation."

To some extent, we are all “co-mediators” with Christ. Mary has partaken more deeply of this ministry than all of us, by bringing Christ into the world. Now, God has lifted up His lowly handmaiden. She is a model of what we will all become, if we remain in Christ. We are all entrusted with the ministry of reconciling the world to God.


Hello CWT, I have just read the link handed to you
and can I say if i had not read this for myself I Would not have believed it. The Catholic church has given themselves the permission to say what ever they like and if it contradicts the word of God tough luck, that is amazing.

basically there is no proof of Mary being Assumed but that dosn’t matter we will just say that she was and that is it, imagine these guys in charge of our legal system, forget the truth, forget the evidence who needs it anyway check this out for the truth mate.



I would have written more, but I’ll just write this for now. I think you misunderstand a few pivotal points.

  1. if we agree on the definition of contradiciton as logical incompatibility between two (or more propositions), could you show me one instance of it. please? Just one, no more.

  2. I assume you believe only in the Bible as the sole rule of faith. I also believe that the Bible is enough —> enough (!) to teach us that the Bible is not enough and there’s something like tradtion the Bible teach us to adhere to. That was also the case of the dogma of assumption. The Pope didn’t accept it because it suddenly occured to him or beucause he was in a good mood.

  3. Jesus commanded Peter to bind and loose things (Mt 16, 18-19) and sent his apostles to go and teach the whole world (Mt 28). The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3, 15). The Church proclaims things NEVER on her own authority, but because the authority given to her by Christ. If you disagree with this, you disagree not with the Church but with what Christ said.

Thank you for a nice instance of ad hominem argument, but as you know, statements like these, don’t matter at all.


:slight_smile: Marty, I think you have a lot of misunderstandings about what the Assumption is, and what it means.
I, personally, have come to believe in the Assumption of Mary, based solely on Scripture. I also have come to believe that Mary did not die, but was assumed into Heaven without having passed through death. Again: on the basis of the Biblical teachings alone.
Indeed, it was my realization that the Bible tells me that Mary must have not died, but have been taken into Heaven while still living, which made me understand & accept that she had, in fact, been assumed!!

Again, I think this is the plain teaching of Scripture. I realize that you do not agree…Since only Catholics (& perhaps Eastern Orthodox?) are required to accept this teaching, that is OK.
But I think, that I, too, have the indwelling of the Spirit.

God bless all here.



revmarty, it seems that you know neither the scripture, nor the power of God. The power that was given to the church was not given to it by itself, but by Jesus Himself. This is what He meant when He passed on the Keys to Peter, and when He told HIs apostles they had the power to bind and loose.

Furthermore, none of the teachings of the Church contradict the Word of God, because the Catholic Church produced the Scriptures which you are erroneously interpreting.

By the way, you would do well to go read the forum rules. Posting anticatholic websites and propaganda is against the forum rules, and will result in sanctions, up to and including being banned. If you wish to pander heresies, you will have to find some other venue. This forum is for people who are honestly interested in understanding Catholic teaching, not for the promotion of error about that teaching.


Then you will realize these things:

The Word of God is not a book, but a person (Jesus) who revealed His teaching orally to His apostles. Jesus taught that when there were disagreements, they were to be taken to the church for resolution, thereby commanding that the Church is the arbiter of disputes, not a book.

All the more reason Jesus’ promise to guide them into all truth is so important.

Actually, your error of how truth is learned is a better demonstration of corruption. You are in error again about the Church. The Church does not “agree on or assume a thing”. On the contrary, the Church accepts the revelation of truth from Jesus Christ. The Church takes what was given to her by her Head, and passes it on to the world.

And who establishes “the facts” revmarty? Are you the self appointed arbitor for those “facts”. If it is not a fact to revmarty, it is pretend?

Your assertion that Mary’s bones can be found contradict the scriptures, and contradicts the teachings we have received from the fathers. You have rejected the teaching authority that Jesus placed over His church.

Please demonstrate from scripture where the authority to bind and loose is given to all believers.

The chasm, revmarty, is in your mind. You are lacking in knowledge of Christian history, and lacking in knowledge of Christ.


I am a Christian not a Catholic Christian. I have a good impression of the RCC based on my experience with many Catholics. (contrariwise I am appalled by the number of anti-Christians that used to be Catholics, someone please explain this to me)

To the point; If there is no scriptural basis for Mary as intermediary or that she was a perpetual virgin (all evidence to the contrary), or that she was just sucked into Heaven or something, at what point did the Church come to believe and teach this and whose writings were these doctrines developed from?

I have advanced degrees in PS and History. Know that there was a strong tradition of matriarchical religions in the Med esp and it is generally accepted in academic circles that the cult of Mary was developed by the early church to make it more palatable to pagans, just as most European Cathedrals and churches are built on Pagan holy sites. I am willing to accept that God did not stop talking to man when the Bible was published, so how early is the tradition of Mary being superhuman, and who started it and where.



I would like you to answer to Guanophore’s questions.

if as you say:

How can you know that the books you have in your NT are inspired? What if the apocryphal writings are the true word of God? How can you trust fallible, corrupted humans that decided upon this? I honestly think you shouldn’t base your beliefs on what is in the Bible if it really isn’t the inspired word of God. Perhaps it is also only fallible and corrupted. How can you know?! Not in the Bible… :nope:

Guanophore asked this, but I would really like to know this as well very much:

Where’s that!?


Perhaps you don’t disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches. Perhaps you disagree only with the misrepresentation of what it teaches.


Hi Markway

does these articles I mentioned in the beginning help?…_and_Assum.asp

I would ask you whether you could you give me some of the “all evidence to the contrary”, however I don’t want to derail the thread.

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