Talk #13 MARIAN DOCTRINES

Talk #6 MARIAN DOCTRINES

INTRODUCTION Four areas of doctrine concerning Mary have been misunderstood by many. They are the teachings on Mary as Mother of God, as immaculately conceived, Mary as ever- virgin and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. These doctrines have been believed from first days of Christianity and have been continuously adhered to by the Catholic Church, but there have been challenges to these doctrines throughout the years with the most widespread coming with the Protestant Reformation.

I “MOTHER OF GOD” Mary’s title “Mother of God” is inseparable from Christ’s two essential titles: “Son of God” and “Son of Man;” to deny Mary her title is to deny Christ his. To deny Mary is the Mother of God is to deny Christ’s divinity (i.e. to deny that God really became Mary’s son). If we believe that Jesus is God and that Mary is Jesus’ mother “in the flesh,” then we must believe that Mary is the Mother of God “in the flesh.” Mary is understood correctly only in relation to Jesus. A Historical Background As the early Church developed, it defined events and beliefs presented in Scripture and Apostolic traditions. By the 3rd century, Mary was being referred to in Greek interchangeably as “kristotokos” (“Mother of Christ”) and “theotokos” (“Mother of God”). “Mother of Christ” emphasizes Jesus’ human nature, while “Mother of God” emphasizes his divine nature. By the 5th century, Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, argued vehemently that the term “Mother of God” was incorrect, for he believed that Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, but not his divine nature; according to Nestorius, Jesus was a man on whom God conferred his own divine nature sometime after Jesus’ birth. St. Cyril of Alexandria took the position that Mary was the mother of Jesus in both his human and divine nature; according to St. Cyril, Jesus was fully human and fully divine from the moment of conception. At St. Cyril’s request, Pope Celestine convened the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 specifically to settle the issue. After much debate, the council concluded: “Nor was He (Jesus) first born of the holy Virgin as an ordinary man, in such way that the Word only afterwards descended upon Him; rather was He united (humanity and divinity) in the womb itself, and thus is said to have undergone birth according to the flesh . . . For this reason (we) have boldly proclaimed the holy Virgin “Theotokos” (Mother of God).” The Council of Ephesus affirmed that Jesus was no ordinary man who was infused with divinity at some time during his life; rather, from the moment of his virginal conception in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit, Jesus was fully God and fully human.

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 1 of 11 B The natures and person of Jesus The two natures of Jesus, namely, human and divine, are substantially united in the divine Person in what theologians call a “hypostatic union”. Mary was not the mother of humanity of Jesus, but the mother of the human person, Jesus; and she was not the mother of the divinity of Jesus, but the mother of the divine person Jesus. Motherhood relates to the person of the offspring, not the nature. Your mother is not the mother of your human nature, but of you, the person. Mary did not cause Jesus’ divinity just as our mother did not create our soul. I just call my mother “my mother”, not the mother of my body and not of my soul. We do not take Mary as a “goddess”. From the discussion above, it is abundantly clear that the title given to Mary tells us more about Jesus than it does about Mary. It stresses the divinity of Jesus Christ and that he was both human and divine at the time of his conception. It was meant to address Christological heresy. The early heretics had argued that Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father, and they attempted to demonstrate this by pointing to Jesus’ origin from a human mother. The Church responded by distinguishing the Son’s existence as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity from all eternity and His assumption of a human nature from our Lady in the Incarnation. To stress the continuity between the Lord’s divine preexistence and His existence in time, and His uninterrupted state of divinity (not lost in the Incarnation), the Church saw the appropriateness of regarding Mary as the Mother of God, that is, the Mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in His earthly life. Therefore, when the Blessed Virgin Mary is referred to as the “mother of God,” the primary focus is on Jesus, not on her. “Mother of God,” then, is Christological and not Mariological in its emphasis.

II IMMACULATE CONCEPTION A Meaning of Immaculate Conception The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived in the womb of her mother without the stain of original sin. Some non-Catholics think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but the proper name for that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary herself was conceived “by the power of the Holy Spirit”, in the way Jesus was, but it does not. Surprisingly, even some think that it means Jesus was conceived without sin! B Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception. The Bible makes no direct reference to Mary’s Immaculate Conception, although there are also no scripture that denies it (negative support). The Catholic Church teaches, however, that the concept is present in Scripture by implication or indirect scriptural references. Luke clearly presents Mary as an exceptionally holy Person (“full of grace”), and one could argue (and the Catholic Church does) that only a flawless holiness would in any way be proportionate to the role that Mary is asked to fulfill. Christ would not derive his sinless body from a mother’s body that had been even slightly sin- Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 2 of 11 contaminated. Such reasoning is supported by God’s demand for holiness in all those who draw near to him (“Be ye perfect as my father in heaven is perfect”). Since Mary was to give birth to the all-holy Son of God, it was fitting that God should protect her from sin by a unique privilege of grace. Grace excludes sin, and had there been any sin at all in Mary she could not have been declared to be filled with grace. Some bible translations of the angel’s salutation have the phrase “highly favored” instead of “full of grace” but the Greek certainly implies “completely filled with holiness,” a perfection of grace. If she was merely “highly favored” in the normal connotation of those words, her status would have been indistinguishable from that of some other women in the Bible, such as Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, or Sarah, the wife of Abraham, or Anna, the mother of Samuel – all of whom by the way, were long childless and were “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas for children. C Historical Background Mary’s sinlessness is an ancient and consistent tradition, implicitly acknowledged as early as 150 A.D. and proclaimed as early as 370 A.D. by St. Ephrem. The Church fathers by the 8th century, all regarded Mary as sinless and by the 12th century pronounced that she was not only the holiest of God’s creatures, but she was so holy that she was born free from any taint of original sin. In 1477 Pope Sixtus IV approved the feast of the Conception of the Immaculate Virgin. On December 8, 1854, resolving the persistent debate on this doctrine, Pope Pius IX issued a statement that defined the Immaculate Conception as a dogma of faith. “ To the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, to the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, to the exaltation of the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our Own, declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her Conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the omnipotent God, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.” (Ineffabilis Deus) Note that the Church was merely codifying a belief that always existed in the Church, and was expressed in the writings of the early Church fathers. Not long, thereafter, at Lourdes, France, one of the approved apparitions of Mary, Mary herself declared to the children visionaries that she is the Immaculate Conception. The Catholic Catechism further crystallizes this doctrine in par. 490 – “To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace.” In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.”

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 3 of 11 D Answering Objections:

1. Romans 3:23 says that “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” Why would Mary be an exception? Answer: “All” is a ‘relative absolute’ construction. According to Semitic language structure, it does not necessarily encompass “each and every.” St. Paul was merely emphasizing the universal aspect of sin extending to Jews and Gentiles alike. Babies and children below the age of reason have not sinned; By definition they can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. Jesus never sinned. (Heb. 4:15). So Paul’s statement in Romans 3 must also include an exception for Jesus. But if it includes an exception for Jesus, the Second Adam, then it also includes an exception for Mary, the Second Eve. 2. If Mary never sinned, she doesn’t need a Savior. So why does Mary say in Luke1:47– “my spirit rejoices in God, My Savior.” Answer: Mary, too, required a Savior. Mary was saved by the merits of Christ, just as we are. The difference between Mary and other Christians is that her salvation from sin was more perfect. While we are freed from original sin at our baptism, Mary was preserved from original sin at her conception. God, by a positive act, chose to intervene and prevent Mary’s soul from bearing that stain. As pointed out by Duns Scotus, a medieval Franciscan theologian, just as health can come either by way of prevention of disease or by way of cure of disease, so can salvation. It is like one person being saved from disease by an inoculation to prevent it, and another person being saved from the same disease by an operation to cure it – by the same doctor. Mary was prevented from inheriting original sin from the moment of her conception. This “preservative redemption” was basically the perfect redemption, since it involved not the healing of sin but the preventing of sin. Here’s another analogy. Let’s say you’re walking along a jungle path. In the middle of the path, carefully hidden by branches and leaves, is a deep pit. You don’t notice the pit and fall into it. A passerby pulls you out. You are saved from the pit. Then a woman walks along another path with another hidden pit. Just as she is about to tumble in, a passerby reaches out and pulls her back. She too is saved from the pit, but in anticipation – before falling in – rather than after the fact. Both of you are saved from the pit (original sin), and both have a Savior (Jesus is the Savior in both cases). This illustration have been used by Christians for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church thus describes her as “the most excellent fruit of redemption.” (CCC 508) in that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

3. If Mary were sinless, why did she have to comply with the requirement of a sacrifice (“a pair of doves or two young pigeons”) as a sin offering? Answer: It cannot be argued that Jesus is sinless. Why did he have to be baptized by John when baptism is precisely for the purpose of forgiveness of sins?

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 4 of 11 4. Was not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception simply “invented” by Pope Pius IX in 1854? Answer: No. The dogma was not officially defined until 1854, for it took time for the Church to properly understand and define it after the question had been matured and examined over time. But its substance had been known and believed from the beginning since it was present from the beginning in the original “deposit of faith” like all dogmas, including the Trinity and the Incarnation, all of which took centuries before they were defined infallibly. The truth did not change with time; the Church’s awareness and understanding of it did. Actually, dogmas are defined only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 5 of 11 III PERPETUAL VIRGINITY A Introduction No Christian who takes the Scriptures seriously can doubt Mary’s virginity up to the birth of Jesus since the Gospels are so clear on this point. (Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:34). However, the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin not only when she conceived the Lord in her womb but for the remainder of her life. That is why we also call us her the “Virgin Mother.” The church makes an issue over Mary’s perpetual virginity because it is a matter of preserving the truth. From the earliest liturgical prayers, Mary has always been referred to as “the Virgin.” If Mary had not remained a virgin until death, why speak of her after the birth of Christ as such? If one has an uncle who is a bachelor, he is rightly referred to as one’s “bachelor uncle.” If he marries and thus ceases to be a bachelor, calling him a “bachelor uncle” would be senseless. In the same way, the early Church spoke of Mary as “the Virgin” precisely because of the belief that she lived and died a virgin. Thus, the Church from its inception has always spoken of the “ever-Virgin Mary.” The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not a statement that sex is bad, but it is an important statement regarding Mary’s single-heartedness and the uniqueness of her vocation. During the early stages of the Nestorian controversy, the perpetual virginity of Mary was postulated as a necessary condition accompanying Mary’s role as bearer of God. Pope Siricus (A.D. 384-399) wrote to Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica, on the subject: “You have good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if He had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of Eternal King.” Thereafter, Mary was called “Blessed Virgin” and by that, it was meant that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

1 The brothers and sisters of Jesus The teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity was first challenged by Helvidius on the basis of scriptural passages mentioning the “brothers of the Lord.” St. Jerome immediately came to its defense in his work “Against Helvidius.” He argues that “brothers of the Lord” frequently mentioned in the gospels – and named in Mt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3 – are his cousins or relatives, not his blood brothers born of Mary. This work proved seminal, for from the 4th century onward, Mary’s perpetual virginity is often mentioned in patristic writings and the teaching was broadly accepted by the Church. In A.D. 681, the 6th Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople accepted the teaching without question. It is noteworthy that Protestant reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli all defended the perpetual virginity of Mary. The arguments against the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity persisted since the New Testament event identifies who these brothers of Jesus were. The following scriptural passages mentioning Jesus’ brothers and sisters, became a focus of debates. The brothers referred to was identified in Mt. 13:55 & in Mark 6:3 which reads: “Isn’t

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 6 of 11 this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters with us?” The Catholic teaching on Mary maintains that the mention of “brothers and sisters” of Jesus does not go against the teaching of her perpetual virginity. It is crucial to realize that a deficiency in Hebrew and Aramaic makes it difficult to discern whether the expression carries the connotation of blood brothers and sisters, cousins, or some other relations between the two. One cannot prove that Mary had other children from the Gospel accounts for this reason. The Hebrew language, as well as the Aramaic language spoken by Christ and his disciples does not have separate words for “Brother”, “cousin” or “near-relative.” In Hebrew, any relative is called “brother” or “sister”. In the Bible we find more than five hundred examples where the word “brothers” signifies a fairly close relationship. For example, in Hebrew, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14) yet we know Lot was Abraham’s nephew (Gen. 11:27). Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). The Jews used the word “brother” for any near relative, without necessarily meaning "blood" brothers. Sometimes they even meant kinsman (Deut. 23:7, Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kings 10:13-14). In Mark 15:40, we see some women watching Jesus while dying on the cross. “Among them was Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James the younger and of Joses and Salome.” If it were Mary, mother of Jesus, it would be very strange that precisely at this hour she is spoken of as the mother of James and Joset rather than as mother of the condemned. It would also be strange that she is mentioned only after Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalene). John says that this “other” Mary, wife of Cleophas, was the ‘sister,’ which means probably a close relative of Mary. (Jn. 19:25 reads – Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister Mary, who was the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.”). We must then admit that James and Joset are the sons of this ‘other Mary’ (Mt. 28:1 reads – “After the sabbath, at the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to visit the tomb.”) They are at the most first cousins of Jesus, while Simon and Jude were more distant relatives of Jesus. The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father – plus other relatives and even non-relatives. Our catechism wraps up the whole discussion in CCC 500. “ Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.” We can also argue from other information in scriptures: 1. There do not seem to be any other brothers or sisters of Jesus when he was twelve years old in the Temple incident. There is no hint in this episode of any

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 7 of 11 other children in the family. (Luke 2:41-51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary”. The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren”. If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage. 2. There were no brothers or sisters of Jesus when he was on the cross. On the cross, Jesus gave the care of his Mother to the Apostle John. This would have been unthinkable for a Jew, if there had been other brothers or sisters who could have taken care of her. In the first Christian community, when the Gospels were written, there was a very influential group composed of Jesus’ relatives and townmates at Nazareth. These were called “brothers of the Lord” and one of them, James, became bishop of the Jerusalem community. Little is said of this group other than that they were late in believing in Jesus even though he had lived with them for several years. (Mk. 3:21; Jn. 7:3-5) In referring to them, the Gospel gives them the name the Christian community had given them, “brothers of the Lord” or “so and so, brother of Jesus.”

2 Questions based on the word “until” in Mt. 1:24-25

Later on, Fundamentalists believe that when Matthew tells the story of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth he assumes Mary and Joseph went on to have a normal married life based on Mt. 1:24-25 which reads – “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until (Greek: “heos”) she gave birth to a son.” According to them, in the ordinary meaning of such a construction, something negated until a particular time normally occurs after that time has passed. The problem is that they are using a narrow modern meaning of “until” instead of the meaning it had when the bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the bible, some ridiculous meanings result. Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? Although the word “until” in a negative construction may imply future action in English, it does not in Greek much less in Hebrew. Thus in Gen. 8:7, we read that “the raven went forth from the ark and did not return until the waters dried up.” That expression does not suggest that it returned then. It did not return at all. The examples could be multiplied, but the idea is clear – which is that nothing at all can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matt 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American bible); “he had not known her when she bore a son” (Knos).

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 8 of 11 3 Jesus is Mary’s “first born” and therefore his brothers and sisters were “second born”, etc. Fundamentalists further claim that Jesus could not be Mary’s first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first born?” Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second born,” perhaps a “third born”, and so on? But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first- born?” Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child. 4 Mary married Joseph and therefore cannot remain celibate. Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages “unnatural” arrangements. The cultural background of Mary in this discussion is very important. Mary and Joseph were betrothed. Among Jews, betrothal was almost the equivalent of marriage. The engaged or “betrothed” couple would normally be allowed to have sexual relations but the groom may not take the bride into his home until they are actually married. Mary nevertheless asks the angel – “how shall this be done, since I do not know man?” The only possible way of understanding this statement is to postulate that Mary had some sort of promise that she was not going to have relations with Joseph. Otherwise, she would simply have told the angel, “Fine, Joseph and I are betrothed; we shall soon be married, and I can then give birth to the child of which you speak.” Mary, in stead, inquired – “How can this be since I know not man?” Was God asking her to relinquish her promise of virginity, or did the Almighty have another plan? In response, the angel tells of the virgin birth, that the child will be conceived without a human father. In other words, Mary is the first one to bring up the subject of virginity. If this is so, we can assume that the promise, which was kept for the birth of the Son of God, was not violated later on. Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was a matter of necessity. Because of considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was necessary for Mary, a consecrated ‘virgin of the Lord’ to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus according to the document Protoevangelium of James, written no later than 120 AD, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen.

IV THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY A Introduction Just as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity, so too they reject the dogma of the Assumption. They think that it is the Catholic position that Mary did not die and argue that if that is so, why is there no mention of it in scriptures like Enoch and Elijah. After all, it would have been truly “remarkable”. That is not, however, the Catholic position. Catholic commentators, not to mention the popes, have generally agreed that Mary died; that belief has long been expressed through the liturgy. The doctrine says that at the end of her life on earth Mary

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 9 of 11 was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps other had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind that the Assumption is not, as some people think, the same as “Ascension”. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power. The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the most universal consensus is that she did die.

1 Historical Background The belief of Mary’s Assumption into heaven is based on a strong tradition, traceable back to 400 A.D. During the 7th century, Pope Sergius I (A.D. 687-701) prescribed four Marian feasts: the Nativity, Annunciation, Purification, and Dormition. It isn’t until the 8th century that the word “Assumption” appears in reference to Mary, when Pope Adrian I (A.D. 772-295) uses it in place of the term “Dormition” (“falling asleep”) for the last of the four Marian feasts. Pope Leo IV (A.D. 847-855) stressed the Assumption when he prescribed a vigil for the night before the feast. It is not until the 20th century that explicit mention is made of the Assumption in papal teaching. Pius XII mentions it in his papal encyclical, Mystici Corporis (June 29, 1943). The investigation that followed led to his pronouncement on November 1, 1950, of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. He declares – “The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” (Munificentissimus Deus) It was necessary that all three qualities: “Mother of God,” “ever-Virgin,” and “Immaculate” be ascribed to Mary before the Assumption could be fully accepted by the Church. Again, we must point out that papal infallibility extends to whatever is related to the revealed content of the bible and Tradition. We need not be able to trace historically through ecclesiastical documents the church’s hierarchical teaching on some matters of faith and morals. It is enough if the combined Catholic episcopate, united with the bishop of Rome, show such agreement at any given period of the Church’s life and worship. (horizontal infallibility) The fact remains that it is still rooted in scripture. CCC 966 states – “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 . . . The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians.” 2. Answering Objections: a. The doctrine of Mary’s assumption after her death is not contained in Scripture. Answer: As in the case of the dogma of Immaculate Conception, the doctrine is supported by Scripture, although indirectly, not directly. First, negatively, there is nothing in the bible that contravenes this doctrine. Secondly, While it is not contained in scripture, it is guaranteed by tradition and by the teaching of the Catholic Church. That Scripture omits to record the fact is no argument against it. Omission is not denial. Meantime, early traditions positively recorded the fact, and negatively we note that, while the mortal remains of a St. Peter and of a St. Paul are jealously

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 10 of 11 possessed and honored in Rome, no city or Christian center has ever claimed to possess the mortal remains of Mary. Certainly relics of Mary would be regarded as having greater value than those of any Saint or Apostle but no such relics has ever been found. Assumption is not anti-scriptural. In fact, Scripture gives every indication that such a thing could occur. Consider the unusual ends of certain righteous people in the Old Testament: Enoch, who was taken to heaven without dying (Heb. 11:5); and Elijah, who was whisked into heaven by a fiery chariot (2 Kings 2:11). And it was most fitting that the body of Mary, who had been preserved even from the taint of original sin, should not have been allowed to corrupt. After all, it was just as easy for God to take her glorified body to Heaven at once as it will be to take the glorified bodies of all the saved at the last day. The definite sanction of this doctrine by the Catholic Church is sufficient assurance of the fact. The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is not excluded in 1 Cor. 15:23, and it is even suggested by Matthew 27:52-53” “. . . the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise”, where the righteous men and women from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s Resurrection, after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. After all, the bible says nothing against the Assumption; silence is not the same as rejection, though, to be sure, silence is not the same as affirmation either. Silence is just – silence. b. If Mary was immaculately conceived, and if death was a consequence of original sin, why did she die? Answer: Although she was wholly innocent and never committed a sin, she died in order to be in union with Jesus. Keep in mind that he did not have to die to accomplish our redemption; he would have just willed it, and that would have been sufficient. But he chose to die. Mary identified herself with his work, her whole life being a cooperation with God’s plan of salvation, certainly from her saying “Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38), but really from the very start of her life. She accepted death as Jesus accepted death, and she suffered (Luke 2:35) in union with his suffering. Just as she shared in his work, she shared in his glorification. She shared in his Resurrection by having her glorified body taken into heaven, the way the glorified bodies of all the saved will be taken into heaven on the last day. CONCLUSION Mary has occupied a special place in Catholic devotion because she was the mother of Jesus, entitling her to the title of “Mother of God”. As befits her position, she was conceived without original sin and therefore was as the angel said, “Full of Grace”. God spared Mary from sin, crediting to her in advance the benefits of her Son’s redemptive

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 11 of 11 sacrifice, so that she could sinlessly bear the sinless Son of God. She remained a perpetual virgin. Great homage and respect was given to his mother by Jesus and she shared not only in his mission, but also in his sorrows and suffering. She was assumed into heaven where she sits with her son.

Part 2; Talk #6 Marian Doctrines Page 12 of 11