The Assumption of Mary: 12 things to know and share [Akin] 15 is the solemnity of the Assumption of Mary.

In the United States, it is a holy day of obligation.

What is the Assumption of Mary, how did it come to be defined, and what relevance does it have for our lives?

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) What is the Assumption of Mary?

The Assumption of Mary is the teaching 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 [Pius XII, *Munificentissimus Deus 44].

2) What level of authority does this teaching have?

This teaching was infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in the bull Munificentissimus Deus (Latin, “Most Bountiful God”).

As Pius XII explained, this is “a divinely revealed dogma” (ibid.).

This means that it is a dogma in the proper sense. It is thus a matter of faith that has been divinely revealed by God and that has been infallibly proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as such.

3) Does that mean it is an “ex cathedra” statement and that we have to believe it?

Yes. Since it is a dogma defined by the pope (rather than by an ecumenical council, for example), it is also an “ex cathedra” statement (one delivered “from the chair” of Peter).

Because it is infallibly defined, it calls for the definitive assent of the faithful.

Pope John Paul II explained:

The definition of the dogma, in conformity with the universal faith of the People of God, definitively excludes every doubt and calls for the express assent of all Christians General Audience, July 2, 1997].

Note that all infallibly defined teachings are things we are obliged to believe, even if they aren’t defined “ex cathedra” (by the pope acting on his own).

The bishops of the world teaching in union with the pope (either in an ecumenical council or otherwise) can also infallibly define matters, but these aren’t called “ex cathedra” since that term refers specifically to the exercise of the pope’s authority as the successor of St. Peter. (It’s Peter’s cathedra or “chair” that symbolizes the pope’s authority.)

4) Does the dogma require us to believe that Mary died?

It is the common teaching that Mary did die. In his work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott lists this teaching as sententia communior (Latin, “the more common opinion”).

Although it is the common understanding of that Mary did die, and although her death is referred to in some of the sources Pius XII cited in Munificentissimus Deus, he deliberately refrained from defining this as a truth of the faith.

John Paul II noted:

On 1 November 1950, in defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII avoided using the term “resurrection” and did not take a position on the question of the Blessed Virgin’s death as a truth of faith.

The Bull Munificentissimus Deus limits itself to affirming the elevation of Mary’s body to heavenly glory, declaring this truth a “divinely revealed dogma.”

5) Why should Mary die if she was free from Original Sin and its stain?

Being free of Original Sin and its stain is not the same thing as being in a glorified, deathless condition.

Jesus was also free of Original Sin and its stain, but he could—and did—die.

Expressing a common view among theologians, Ludwig Ott writes:

For Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin.

However, it seems fitting that Mary’s body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death.

6) What are the earliest surviving references to Mary’s Assumption?

John Paul II noted:

The first trace of belief in the Virgin’s Assumption can be found in the apocryphal accounts entitled *Transitus Mariae *[Latin, “The Crossing Over of Mary”], whose origin dates to the second and third centuries.

These are popular and sometimes romanticized depictions, which in this case, however, pick up an intuition of faith on the part of God’s People.

7) How did the recognition of Mary’s Assumption develop in the East?

John Paul II noted:

There was a long period of growing reflection on Mary’s destiny in the next world.

This gradually led the faithful to believe in the glorious raising of the Mother of Jesus, in body and soul, and to the institution in the East of the liturgical feasts of the Dormition “falling asleep”—i.e., death] and Assumption of Mary.

8) How did Pius XII prepare for the definition of the Assumption?

John Paul II noted:

In May 1946, with the Encyclical Deiparae Virginis Mariae, Pius XII called for a broad consultation, inquiring among the Bishops and, through them, among the clergy and the People of God as to the possibility and opportuneness of defining the bodily assumption of Mary as a dogma of faith.

The result was extremely positive: only six answers out of 1,181 showed any reservations about the revealed character of this truth.

9) What Scriptural basis is there for the teaching?

John Paul II noted:

Although the New Testament does not explicitly affirm Mary’s Assumption, it offers a basis for it because it strongly emphasized the Blessed Virgin’s perfect union with Jesus’ destiny.

This union, which is manifested, from the time of the Savior’s miraculous conception, in the Mother’s participation in her Son’s mission and especially in her association with his redemptive sacrifice, cannot fail to require a continuation after death.

Perfectly united with the life and saving work of Jesus, Mary shares his heavenly destiny in body and soul.

There are, thus, passages in Scripture that resonate with the Assumption, even though they do not spell it out.

10) What are some specific Old Testament passages?

Pope Pius XII pointed to several passages that have been legitimately used in a “rather free” manner to explain belief in the Assumption (meaning: these passages resonate with it in various ways, but they don’t provide explicit proof):

Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.

Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist:

“Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified” (Ps. 131:8);

and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord’s temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven.

Treating of this subject, they also describe her as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer(Ps. 44:10-14ff).

Likewise they mention the Spouse of the Canticles “that goes up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh and frankincense” to be crowned (Song 3:6; cf. also 4:8, 6:9).

These are proposed as depicting that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom *Munificentissimus Deus *26].

11) What are some specific New Testament passages?

Pius XII continued:

Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos (Rev. 12:1ff).

Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women”(Luke 1:28), since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve *Munificentissimus Deus *27].

12) How can we apply this teaching to our everyday lives?

According to Pope Benedict XVI:

By contemplating Mary in heavenly glory, we understand that the earth is not the definitive homeland for us either, and that if we live with our gaze fixed on eternal goods we will one day share in this same glory and the earth will become more beautiful.

Consequently, we must not lose our serenity and peace even amid the thousands of daily difficulties. The luminous sign of Our Lady taken up into Heaven shines out even more brightly when sad shadows of suffering and violence seem to loom on the horizon.

We may be sure of it: from on high, Mary follows our footsteps with gentle concern, dispels the gloom in moments of darkness and distress, reassures us with her motherly hand.

Supported by awareness of this, let us continue confidently on our path of Christian commitment wherever Providence may lead us. Let us forge ahead in our lives under Mary’s guidance General Audience, August 16, 2006].

Looking for Something Good to Read? I suggest my*commentary on the Gospel of Mark?

It goes through the whole text and provides fascinating information that you may have never heard before.

It also comes with a verse-by-verse study guide with questions that you or your study group can use.

And it comes with a lectionary-based study guide, so you can read along with Mark in the liturgy and ponder its meaning before or after Mass.

Right now, this commentary is available*exclusively on Verbum Catholic software.

Verbum is an incredibly powerful study tool that I use every day, and I heartily recommend it to others.

I can also***save you 10%***when you get the commentary or one of the bundles of Verbum software. Just use the code***JIMMY1***at checkout.



:slight_smile: Thanks!

I have to ask this. If this was made official in 1950, I could have been a Catholic in the last 1,950 years and not agreed with this. But since 1950, if I don’t agree with this I am not in line with church teaching?

We were not required to go to mass today for this, as we were at mass yesterday, and it covered it. That is not something that is done if Christmas falls on a Monday.

Does this mean it’s not on the same level as Christmas as a Holy Day?

It’s hard to stand our ground on teaching that is mandatory, only until the Bishop says - Not this year because it’s on a Monday.

The Assumption of the Virgin Mary is a Solemnity the same as the Nativity of the Lord. THAT does not change. The USCCB has not made this year’s feast a day of obligation, that is all. For those attending Mass today, it is still the same solemnity as it would be if it WAS a holy day of obligation. You know a couple of hundred years ago there were over 30 days of obligation in the Church Calendar not counting Sundays. But all of THOSE feasts are still important too.

As far as the first 1950 yrs. go, the Assumption of Mary is a VERY ancient feast. In fact, it is one of the MOST ancient of all our feasts. So although it was not an article of Faith to believe that the Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven, it was taught in the Church both East and West very early on (say the 4th century on.) So pious Catholics DID believe in the Assumption of Mary almost from the beginning. However speculation was permitted until recently with the dogmatic definition.

The start of this thread says it is a Holy Day of obligation, correct?

Time edit - you could have been Catholic for approx. 1,917 years.

Yes, but that’s a disciplinarian aspect of the feast. Whether it is or isn’t does not affect the intrinsic Solemnity of the Feast on the Church calendar. IOW, it’s a changeable aspect, and subject to the Bishop’s ruling. The Bishop CAN make Christmas also be a day of NO obligation. But that would not change the Liturgical Solemnity of the feast for the Church Universal.

This is a dogma I struggle with, but trying to understand better. Please pray for me.

Praying for all…

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners, NOW and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Me too. Is it possible - yes. Is it so factual that dis-belief is heretical???:shrug:

You could have been a Catholic for the first 360 years of Christianity and disagreed on what books a Sacred Scripture. But after that time, if you disagreed you would not have been in line with Church teaching.

You could have been a Catholic for the first 300 years of Christianity and disagreed that Jesus was divine and of the same substance as the Father. After that time, you would not have been in line with Church teaching.

The Church only defines things that need to be defined, to be clearly spelled out. That’s how God has chosen to guide His Church.

We were not required to go to mass today for this, as we were at mass yesterday, and it covered it. That is not something that is done if Christmas falls on a Monday.

Does this mean it’s not on the same level as Christmas as a Holy Day?

It’s hard to stand our ground on teaching that is mandatory, only until the Bishop says - Not this year because it’s on a Monday.

The Church gives specific authority to bishops to abrogate the requirement to attend on HDO’s for certain reasons. It hasn’t given authority to abrogate the requirement for Christmas.

Powerful perspective - Sincere Thank You! :thumbsup:


You are welcome. :thumbsup:

Just for the record that is not entirely correct.

For example, for the first 300 years of Christianity, Jesus was believed to be God, and was one with the Father. If you disagreed you would have been in the company of Cerinthus against whom St. John the Evangelist wrote his Gospel.

What actually happened with the Arian heresy is that it took on a new form where the Son was NOT of the same Substance of the Father. Arius taught that Jesus was the first born (the created) as opposed to the “uncreated” Father. IOW, the old heresy got more complicated. Therefore it was necessary to again affirm that the Son WAS God, and WAS of the same substance of the Father. “Homoousios.” Remember it was argued in Greek, and used subtle terminology to disguise the heresy.

Therefore the CHURCH always teaches the TRUTH in traditional terms. However, when a subtle (or not so subtle) heresy is broached, the Church must DEFEND its constant teaching using new terms. That is why your statement above is essentially wrong. The Faith remains constant, but the terminology that expresses that Faith changes, based on the Church’s desire to keep its teaching pure and undefiled with heresy. The Arians complained that the word “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in Scripture and was therefore an innovation, and a heresy!

The Books of the Canon of Scripture is another matter. That DID develop over time, and was finally settled by the 4-5th centuries. But keep in mind that the canon of the Scriptures is NOT a part of the Deposit of Faith, like the Divinity of Jesus would be. Instead it is a part of the Church’s Tradition (capital T)

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