Today the Church Universal – in all her rites – and all the Orthodox Churches and even Anglicans and Lutherans celebrate the bodily assumption of Our Lady. For the sake of clarity, let us make sure we understand precisely what we are celebrating. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium and Venerable Pope Pius XII’s dogmatic definition Munificentissimus Deus, informs us: “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians” (n. 966).
As you undoubtedly know, the definition of the Assumption occurred on All Saints Day in 1950. That fact leads some people to assert that this dogma was a modern invention of the Catholic Church. However, such an assertion fails to reflect either history or the proper notion of doctrinal development. The first church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary was under the title of her Dormition or Assumption – already in the fourth century. Obviously, something believed in the fourth century cannot be an invention of the twentieth century. More to the point: When the Church defines a dogma, she is acknowledging a doctrine which has been believed all along and throughout the Church. That having been said, it must also be noted that dogmatic definition rarely occurs unless a doctrine is contested, which was never the case with the Assumption – unlike the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which had a rather checkered history, with some of the greatest theological luminaries (including St. Thomas Aquinas) having serious questions about it. On the contrary, even every so-called reformer of the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century accepted and taught the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven.
So, what inspired Pius XII to define an uncontested doctrine? Clearly, it was the Holy Spirit. But why? Christians had always believed that the Assumption was a privilege accorded to Mary in view of both her Immaculate Conception and her divine maternity. I think there were two phenomena on the horizon, perhaps yet unknown to Pope Pius, which moved him to teach this truth of faith infallibly. The Assumption would be able to underscore the dignity of the human body and the dignity of women, concepts to be assaulted not long after in the dominant culture, especially brought on by the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
From the very beginning of Christianity, we find movements that depreciated the human body. The epistles of St. John take aim at the Gnostics, probably the earliest Christian heretics. According to their theories, the entire physical universe was evil, created by an evil god; only the spiritual had meaning and value. If that were true, then the Incarnation would not be salvific, nor the means of our own future resurrected bodies.
The Gnostics have had numerous descendants in history: the Manichees, who attracted the young Augustine to their number; the Cathars of the Middle Ages, whom St. Dominic fought with every fiber of his being; the Jansenists, who despised the body to such a degree that Parisians quipped that the nuns of Port Royale were “as pure as angels and as proud as devils.” When disdain of the body takes full control, ironically enough, it usually ends up in total depravity. The “logic” goes something like this: If the body has no inherent dignity, then do with it whatever you wish. On the contrary, if the body is what St. Paul says it is, namely, a temple of the Holy Spirit, then it must be reverenced. Our age, whether it knows it or not, has revived the Manicheeism of old, with the result that “anything goes.” Manichees glory in orgies. And why not?
This lack of appreciation for the body has crept into the consciousness even of practicing Catholics. How many believers tend to think of the afterlife as a gathering of disembodied souls, perhaps flitting around on two cute wings? But, no, Christian doctrine holds that after the General Judgment, our souls will be reunited to our bodies; the disembodied soul is a temporary, incomplete state of human existence. Jesus, right now, reigning gloriously in Heaven has a body; Mary, right now, at her Son’s right hand, has a body. And since bodies need a space, Heaven has a zip code! That realization caused St. Thomas Aquinas – good Aristotelian philosopher that he was – to declare: “Thomas is his body.”
Therefore, it is incumbent on us to take care of the body given to us at our conception: what we put into it and what we do with it. After all, a temple is sacred. That said, we must avoid the opposite contemporary error – worshiping the body. The cult of the body mistakes the creature for the Creator. I am always perversely amused by some of my neighbors, who are out running bright and early every morning but can’t get into their car to go to church on Sunday. Some days I feel like telling them that if they don’t get their priorities straight, on the last day they will find their trim, sculpted, beautiful bodies burning in Hell!
Now, let’s get back to something a bit more pleasant. The Risen Christ in His male body and the Assumed Virgin in her female body – the New Adam and the New Eve – represent the fullness of humanity – male and female. They anticipate the general resurrection and stand ready to welcome all Christ’s brethren and Mary’s children. Yes, a woman is essential to the complete picture.
If you pay attention to the conventional wisdom (and you shouldn’t) you will hear a non-stop drumbeat: The Catholic Church is anti-woman. Really? Let’s do a little fact-check on that assertion. First of all, those usually making that accusation, somehow or other, never seem to lob that charge at Orthodox Judaism or Islam, where the status of women really could use some attention.
If we start with the central mystery of the Christian faith – the Incarnation – we see that the greatest event in human history takes place with no male involvement whatsoever, just a young woman cooperating with her God. The veneration of Mary the Virgin brought in its wake veneration of all women. For the first time in history, women had a dignity proper to them; in the Christian scheme of things, they were no longer valued for the pleasure they gave men in bed or the sons they bore them. The esteem for virginity actually fostered the creation of the order of virgins in the Church, which eventually evolved into female religious life. In the Middle Ages, women were queens, scholars, foundresses of religious orders, abbesses and ecclesiastical reformers. Interestingly, one of the criticisms leveled against the Catholic Church by the Protestants of the sixteenth century was that the Church gave too high a place to women – a sure sign of a corrupt Church!
In our own country, if you told someone in the 1940s or 50s or 60s that your school principal or college president or hospital administrator was a woman, that person would know that you were referring to a nun. Secular society had not yet caught up with the Church. But then came the women’s liberation movement with its radical feminism. “Isms” are usually dangerous, and the radical feminism of the 60s and 70s was devastating.
There is, however, a good feminism, which the Church always practiced – even without having a name for it. That good feminism was given form in a particular way by Pope John Paul II in his homilies, addresses, and actions. I am thinking especially of his apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem, promulgated during the Marian Year of 1988, on the Solemnity of the Assumption. I heartily recommend a careful reading or re-reading of that insightful document. The Holy Father astutely observes that equality is not sameness; rather, the correct relationship between the sexes is that of complementarity. In reality, John Paul was following a trajectory of reflection on what he dubbed “the feminine genius” that began with the Pope Pius XII and was continued by Blessed Pope Paul VI. Waxing poetic – as he was wont to do – the Pope proclaims:
The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine “genius” which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness. (n. 31).
The Pope does not shy away from tackling the feminist argument, while warning us about the perils of a derailed feminism:
In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. (n. 10)
He sums it all up thus: “The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity; they are merely different” (n. 10). He also reminds us most wisely:
Thus, by considering the reality “Woman – Mother of God,” we enter in a very appropriate way into this Marian Year meditation. This reality also determines the essential horizon of reflection on the dignity and the vocation of women. In anything we think, say or do concerning the dignity and the vocation of women, our thoughts, hearts and actions must not become detached from this horizon. The dignity of every human being and the vocation corresponding to that dignity find their definitive measure in union with God. Mary, the woman of the Bible, is the most complete expression of this dignity and vocation. For no human being, male or female, created in the image and likeness of God, can in any way attain fulfilment apart from this image and likeness. (n. 5)
Our Lady had two roles in life: as a virgin and as a mother. Sad to say, both roles have fallen on hard times in the past few decades. The witness of Mary needs to be highlighted for the benefit of all women and for the good of all society. In her dual identity as virgin and mother, she gives a face to the dignity of woman. Her glorious assumption also gives hope.
From the glory of Heaven, Mary does not merely offer a holy and hopeful example; she actively intercedes for her children still on their earthly pilgrimage home. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in their Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, bring that document to a conclusion with a stirring Marian reflection:
This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth. . . until they are led into the happiness of their true home. (n. 62)
Early on in this homily, I said that the Blessed Virgin has her place at her Son’s right hand. Where does that idea come from? In ancient Israel, the most powerful woman in the kingdom was the queen mother. And so, we read that when Bathsheba entered the royal chamber, King Solomon stood and bowed to his mother as she assumed a throne next to his. Indeed, to this day, in traditional Judaism, petitioners approach a man’s mother with a request in the assurance that her plea will find a favorable hearing with her son. That conviction is likewise an intensely Catholic conviction as well.
Hans Urs von Balthasar comments poignantly that Mary is “Queen of the Apostles without any pretensions to apostolic powers: she has other and greater powers.” I would suggest that it was consideration of those “other and greater powers” that inspired Pius XII to define the dogma we celebrate today. The humble Virgin of Nazareth, under divine inspiration, exclaimed in her Magnificat, which the Church sings every day: “Ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes” (“For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.”). Today we are proud to say that we have a Mother who provides us with her holy example and her powerful intercession. We are equally proud to take our place in that long line of believers who have fulfilled her prophecy in calling her “blessed.”
Sancta Virgo, Sancta Mater, Assumpta in caelum, ora pro nobis.
Holy Virgin, Holy Mother, assumed into Heaven, pray for us.
(Editor’s note: This homily was preached by the Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., for the Solemnity of the Assumption 2017 at the Church of the Holy Innocents in Manhattan and was posted originally on August 16, 2017. It has been edited slightly for publication.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25
God foreordained that the Messiah was to be born from a virgin, then Joseph could “know her” (sexual relations) and then Mary would be blessed with other children and raise a family.
You’ll notice that after this scripture, VERY little is written about Mary, while the whole focus of the of the Old Testament is the coming of the promised Savior and the New Testament is about the promised Savior Jesus Christ.
@BARB
The truth of the Marian doctrines is known from Scripture not by how much is says about Our Lady, but by what is and how it is said. One thing that is not said is that she had other children, a supposition belied by the phrase “son of Mary” applied to Jesus by the inhabitants of Nazareth, who knew the phrase “son of Joseph” to be inexact.
BARB, nothing is written in Sacred Scripture about you.
You misrepresent the Word of God and the Sacred Traditions Christ taught His Church. You cannot please Jesus Christ by disrespecting His mom. He didn’t choose you to be the Theotokus. Show some respect.
Who doesn’t like a spoonful of folklore? Godly men and women of faith and Christian character need not grasp onto that which falls outside of the guidance of Scripture.
Perhaps I am mistaken and someone will correct me with appropriate references. Never the less:
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offence at him.
Galatians 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
Peace, love and concordance to one and all, in the name of Jesus.
Brian Young you’re not open to the correction in this area. Note it carefully, you say “if someone will correct me with the appropriate-appropriates” and the Lord could amble by and do it yet you’d remain the same “concordance” and none the better for it and you didn’t see Him even making you even worse by it.
Do not be mislead if I pause from your non-pursuit.
THIS IS A JUDGMENT DAY ITEM. You do not fess up by then, well, thereafter there is no-one to correct you and you’ll be in another place with throngs and throngs mocking you this way and that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curia_advisari_vult
Brian, if you were to test the DNA of Our Lord and Lady, you’d find very little difference. In fact, honoring Him directly is honoring HER indirectly. He was knit in His Mother’s Holy womb. Enjoy that fact and please work a little harder to honor the holy that Our Lord Himself loves and honors, eh?
Brother Brian long concealed his identity as an evangelical Christian, but within the last few weeks has finally disclosed that after 30 years he left the Catholic Church, enlightened by an evangelical minister. Brian’s lifelong mission, now, has been to display his new sola Scriptura threads on the pages of CWR.
Other than the historical fact that it is the Catholic Church who recorded the inspired (not dictated) lines of Scripture so tightly possessed by oracle Brother Brian, Brian’s cluster-bomb droppings on these pages wreak of historical and biblical ignorance… Mt 13:55…so what? In the limited vocabulary of Aramaic, the terms we used today (brothers, sisters) also applied to cousins. Likewise, the cited Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19.
As for Lk 2:7, the gratuitous implication seems to be that Catholics regard Mary as some kind of goddess, rather than as the uniquely graced human mother who gave real birth to the incarnate Second Person of the Triune Oneness—a mind-stretching mystery worthy of some notice (it’s called Christianity). But, for some, it’s too much of a stretch to regard Joseph, then, as the stepfather, regardless of what the impenetrable neighbors still might have thought and said about stepfather Joseph’s son—the Son of God.
It’s just possible that Jn 21:25 offers a clue as an “appropriate reference”: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” It’s just possible that while the Gospels recall enough, they do not exhaust the meaning of the astonishing Incarnation into human history. More than a role model. A depth that unfolds within (what’s that word again, oh yes) the living “tradition” of the apostolic and institutional Church founded by Christ (not by some evangelical minister) and, since Pentecost, indwelled by the Holy Spirit. So, Mary, “assumed” into heaven and not at all the same as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Many were relieved to see within the past year that the impenetrable Brother Brian—with an admitted ex-Catholic chip on his shoulder—was on sabbatical at least for a while from the pages of CWR. Too long away, Brian, you and others, from the Real Presence and the gifted sacramental life…
Brian. If your faith rests on scripture alone your faith has a weak foundation. Tradition preceded scripture and in fact scripture is a product of tradition. The early Church existed several centuries without a Bible as we know it. It was the Church which decided the accepted Canon of Holy Scripture and it is the Church which has the authority to interpret that same scripture. Also there is truth which is not recorded in scripture but is also part of tradition.
If truth and interpretation is left up to the individual there is no truth apart from the individual and there are as many “truths “ as there are individuals. Thus we have Protestantism with its many divisions and subdivisions and sub subdivisions etc, etc.
I would rather be in the Barque of Peter in the storm of life than hanging on to a piece of drift wood with no rudder. 😇
@Brian
You wish peace and love to us? Good. Then do not so trivially attack the truth.
All those passages are simply belied by the reference to Our Blessed Lord as “Son of Mary” in Mark 6, the clear implication being that his neighbors knew him thus and that the phrase “son of Joseph” was insufficient.
Anyhow, for centuries the Lord was known as Mary’s only Son, and this was confirmed by deep meditation on Scripture.
Your accusation of folklore is trite, since the Church does not believe the Assumption on the basis of legends but on the authority of God, confirmed by meditation on the meaning of Holy Scripture.
You are no threat to the Faith.
Brian, Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Brother wants you to stop disrespecting His mom, our spiritual mom. He made you free, even to reject Mary’s role in salvation history. But that you think this pleases her Son is foolish.
Your Brother in Christ, God’s Foo
P.s., as for correcting you, I’ll leave that work to our Brother.
Brian. If you are using scripture alone as a basis of your faith, you are building on a foundation of sand. Scripture is the product of tradition and is also interpreted in the light of tradition. The Church existed for several centuries before it had the Bible as we know it. The New Testament was entirely the product of tradition. It was the Church which determined the canon of scripture and it the Church which is the final authority in interpreting scripture. There are also many truths not recorded in scripture which are part of sacred tradition. It is also the Church which is the sole interpreter of tradition. If everyone is at liberty to interpret scripture themselves, you have no truth but as many “truths”as you have individuals – Thus Protestantism with its many divisions and subdivisions and sub subdivisions.
I would rather be in the barque of Peter in the storms of life, than clinging to a piece of rudderless driftwood! 😇
Heb 12:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God… so was Mary. Her reality is defined by the same WORD that created the universe. Was she a virgin when Christ was conceived?…the WORD says she was and I believe it. Was she a willing receptor of that conception?…the WORD says she was and I believe it. “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians”. Does THE WORD say this? DEFINITELY not…and I don’t believe it.
@Barry
On the contrary, it is present in the Word and taught by the Church, and therefore it is incumbent on you to believe it. I am not bound to explain it here, but need only say that long meditation on Scripture’s treatment of Our Lady as the living Israel led to this conclusion. It is either your fallible interpretation of the Word or the infallible teaching of the Church.
Who elected you Pope Barry? What Ecumenical Council did you lead? Why should anyone accept the magisterium of Barry, definitively teaching ex cathedra on Sacred Scripture and Tradition?
I categorically reject your illogical belief Barry. What you teach is that God became Incarnate in the body of Mary, but He definitely did not assume her body. Why not? Christ made Mary to receive His Incarnation. Wouldn’t we all assume our deceased mothers into Heaven if we had the power? That the Word was Made Flesh is the hard part to believe – that God became a Baby in the womb of Mary. After that, the rest of salvation history should be easy to accept.
You have hit the exact right note! St. John Henry Cardinal Newman makes the point that, if you can believe the doctrine that God became Man (which one must to be a Christian), then any other teaching is small potatoes (my vulgarization of Newman’s Victorian prose)!
Fr. Peter, Happy Feast! Thank you for teaching us. Maybe it was Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR who preached that idea? If so, he was always reading Sts. Newman and Augustine. Maybe Apologia 5?
This reminds me of a time when Fr. Benedict was invited to preach at an auditorium full of his Protestant friends. He took the crowd through the historical logic of the Ecumenical Councils. With every Dogma of Christ he got a louder and louder “Amen!” When Fr. Benedict got to the Theotokus, there was a pregnant pause and then the most amazing collective gasp as their intellects kicked into that Truth of the Incarnation.
Barry. Resurrection from the dead is reserved for those who die, their death due to Original Sin. Christ died in his physical nature assuming our sins upon himself for our salvation. Therefore, he was subject to resurrection from the dead.
We pronounce our belief in the resurrection of the body during recitation of the Credo every Sunday, or on solemnities like today. Mary, immaculately conceived, who retained her immaculate soul free from sin was not subject to death and resurrection from the dead. She, because of her freedom from sin, the penalty of which is death, was by necessity assumed body and soul into heaven.
God told Mary: ” Mary, soon I plan to take you up into heaven, but maybe you want to die first, as everybody. It is your choice.” Mary, humble as she is, said:” I prefer to die like everybody, even my Son died. After that you can
take me up”. After one night in the tomb Mary was taken up.
Her empty tomb can still be seen in Jerusalem.
A former Protestant, a friend preparing for the priesthood confided he had difficulty with the doctrine of the Assumption. Fr Stravinskas addresses the mystery at the start of his article linking it directly to the Immaculate Conception. Mary, born without sin, who retained her immaculate soul throughout her life would not be subject to death, or as some might presume a resurrection. Rather she would be assumed body and soul into heaven. Exactly how is a mystery, traditionally held by the Church, whereas the Immaculate Conception was solemnly and definitively pronounced by Pio Nono 1854.
My friend, raised in Protestant England, possessed an independence of mind, a conscientious privacy particular to that culture. It seemed more human, a closer affection of the divinity for Mankind if God permitted Mary to be a sinner like the rest of us poor mortals. What he lacked was Catholic Christianity’s marked sensitivity, an affection, not so much as our personal gift, rather for others in particular one’s mother.
If Jesus of Nazareth loved anyone with depth of fullness, excepting his love for the Father, it would be for his Mother. Catholicism preserved this charming sensitivity in its devotion, prayers, liturgy. Both in music and art, emotively and in the depth of spiritual love. Protestants frequently ridicule the rosary, or more kindly consider it quaint. In fact it’s this emotive sensitivity expressed in our affective love of God’s mother, Theotokos, that has, or at least had when the faith was better practiced, carried over to the love of parents strengthening the bond that retained unity. Card Newman noticed with surprise this affective spirituality, when travelling in his youth ill in Sicily, writing how he was cared for as if he were Christ.
Peter….this is in all Catholic bibles——And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” Luke 1:46,47
Sinless people do not need a Savior.
We all need a Savior, including Mary born without original sin, whose sinlessness is due to his saving love for us. He gifts us with a spiritual Mother model of humility for those of us lacking that humility.
Brain,’
Luke 1:28 has the angel Gabriel say, “Hail, full of grace.” The Greek word in Luke’s Gospel for “full of grace” is a perfect passive participle form, indicating that Mary had been filled with God’s saving grace even prior to the angel’s visit.
God’s effects are ETERNAL, infinite, and God’s power is likewise. God COULD have created and DID create sinless humans; were not Adam and Eve created in a state of grace? How else explain scripture having them walk and talk with God in His paradisaical garden of Eden? When they sinned, they lost the blessed grace in which they had been created.
Similarly, the effects of Christ’s salvation surely could and fittingly did apply to Mary’s soul so that she was saved—throughout her eternal life from the moment of her conception—from any sin. She was conceived immaculately because her Savior could and did create her that way, and His Grace retained and maintained her that way. Without the Savior applying His salvation to His Mother, she would not have been sinless. GOD’s GRACE PRECEDE any good in creation. God is GOOD so only He has the power to make any of us His children (or His Mother), when and how He pleases (contingent upon our ‘fiat’). He chose Mary to be His first fruit of salvation, and she said “Fiat.”
Brother Brian, some of the most important Catholic theologians struggled with your very question and the subsequent dogma of the Immaculate Conception. So you are in good company! For more on your important, totally understandable misunderstanding, see here:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-immaculate-conception-enter-the-subtle-doctor-duns-scotus
But again, a warning. Listen to both Frs. Peter. The Mother of Jesus Christ is the woman in the Book of Revelation. The first angel refused to accept her role in salvation history. It fell when It made its evil choice never to serve in a Kingdom where a created human person was Queen. It hates the flesh. Pride divides. Christ loves His mom. He chose her, not us, to take care of Him as a Baby. Who’s side are you on?