The month of August is for most Americans a time of enjoying the last days of summer fun before preparing for the return of another school year. It’s a relaxing season to be with family and friends, hosting barbecues, picnics, and swimming parties. For Catholics, as for their fellow Americans, August represents the transition from summer heat to the cool air of autumn.
But there’s one important difference between the way Catholics and others observe this month. Catholics celebrate an important mystery in the history of salvation on August 15: the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary.
Officially instituted on this day in the year 1950, this solemnity marks the most recent dogma proclaimed as such by the Catholic Church. But its historical roots run deep: Like every dogma, the Assumption of Mary is first and foremost a mystery, in the biblical and Catholic sense of an event of salvation history that embodies the saving power of God. That means it’s important for us to understand what it’s about.
We may take it for granted that the Church doesn’t proclaim dogmas without good reason. All the major doctrinal decisions in the history of the Church were motivated by a pastoral concern for the health of the faithful. After all, the first and last responsibility of the bishops and priests of the Church is the spiritual welfare of the faithful.
So why is Mary’s assumption into heaven an important truth for our spiritual well-being? What’s the spiritual benefit of the dogma of the Assumption? To find out, we must first understand what the Catholic Church teaches about it.
Pope Pius XII formally defined and promulgated this dogma in his encyclical Munificentissimus Deus (August, 15 1950). The fact of the Assumption was stated this way: “It is a dogma revealed by God that the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven.” But we must also ask what the Holy Father hoped would be the pastoral benefit for the people of God.
The Historical Setting
Why did Pius think this was an important moment to proclaim Mary’s assumption? Most Catholics rarely connect the proclamation of this dogma with the world events during Pius’s pontificate. But in the year 1950 the world was still reeling from the devastating effects of World War II. The inhumanity of the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany had decimated European Jewry, as well as slaughtering millions of Christians and other Gentiles who attempted to resist their demonic policies.
The German military invaded almost every European country; Italy was one of the last to be invaded. During the entire war, Pius XII spoke out against the inhumanity perpetrated by the German juggernaut. From the beginning of his pontificate in 1939 to the end of the war in 1945, Pius had defended the weak by speaking out against man’s inhumanity to man and by covertly arranging the protection of thousands of Jews in Italy.
With the memory of this human devastation still fresh in his mind, Pius XII encouraged a detailed study of Marian doctrine in the late 1940s in anticipation of proclaiming a new dogma for the benefit of humanity. The actual language used in the encyclical Munificentissimus Deus actually alludes to those events:
It is to be hoped that from meditation on the glorious example of Mary men may come to realize more and more the value of a human life entirely dedicated to fulfilling the will of the Heavenly Father and to caring for the welfare of others. We also hope that while materialistic theories [such as Communism] and the moral corruption arising from them are threatening to extinguish the light of virtue, and by stirring up strife, to destroy the lives of men, the exalted destiny of both our soul and body may in this striking manner be brought clearly to the notice of all men.
Pius XII clearly expresses his hope that meditation on Mary’s assumption will lead the faithful to a greater awareness of our common dignity as the human family. The Pope here reflects a truly Catholic perspective that has characterized those pontiffs who were and are great teachers, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He, like his successors, thought that the real cause of such inhuman brutality could be found in the false ideas and sentiments that motivated the aggressors during the war.
Inner Transformation
The Assumption of the Virgin – Titian c1488-1576
Knowing that oppression is an ever-present danger, Pius was convinced that only inner transformation of the person could bring about the social results that lead to “caring for the welfare of others.” Without such a transformation, the systems of government and power would threaten “to extinguish the light of virtue” and eclipse “the exalted destiny of both our soul and body” so that men would forget their heavenly end.
What would impel human beings to keep their eyes fixed on their supernatural end and to desire the salvation of their fellow human beings? Mary’s assumption was a reminder of, and impetus toward, greater respect for humanity because the Assumption cannot be separated from the rest of Mary’s earthly life. Pius XII connected the Assumption explicitly to her Immaculate Conception:
The august Mother of God, mysteriously united from all eternity with Jesus Christ in the one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a virgin inviolate in her divine motherhood, the wholehearted companion of the divine Redeemer who won complete victory over sin and its consequences, gained at last the supreme crown of her privileges — to be preserved immune from the corruption of the tomb, and like her Son, when death has been conquered, to be carried up body and soul to the exalted glory of heaven, there to sit in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the ages.
By meditating on Mary’s participation in the redemptive work of her Son, the faithful would grow in their ability and desire to participate in God’s plan of salvation.
This goal was, and is, what the world needs. It needs a process of transformation in becoming the agents of salvation who honor and promote human welfare. That’s the meaning of Mary’s life, death, and assumption into heaven, both body and soul. After a decade of unprecedented destruction, Pius XII knew that the Church’s acknowledgment of Mary’s assumption would be a compelling boon to a greater sense of humanity.
Some mysterious way I started to receive the newsletter by mail and I can hardly wait to receive the newsletter and spend the entire day studying and reading the newsletter. Now I will be able to share with my friends.
I want to thank God for introducing this is enlightening news letter. The newsletter first appeared in my mailbox shortly after I Presented One Of St. John Cardinal Newman on September 19, 2011 at the dedication of St. Paul Inside The Walls, Evangelization at Bayley-Ellard, Madison, New Jersey.
Dr.Thomas J. Emmer, Sr., D.D.S.
Dr. Howell, and CHN,
Thank you for this article.
Our Blessed Mother is such a perfect role model for us all. It is important, from time to time for us to be reminded of where these dogmas come from, and why we practice them. As one of the Joyful Mysteries we reflect upon, the Assumption comes to us twice weekly in the rosary.
Please tell us more. Maybe it is the school teacher in me and, what was going on when Pope Pius came up with this doctrine is important, but don’t stop there. Many do not know what the legend is, or as often with history…lengends. Could you elaborate upon the source for it. Where did it come from? Is it in the aprocrypha texts? Dormition Church Legend? I can’t quite remember. I can see the images in my mind but can’t remember where it came from.
Sandi Malburg
I love the connection Pope Pius XII illustrates of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her glorious assumption body and soul. God preserved her from sin for a remarkable mission which she would be called to after her FIAT was proclaimed. Therefore, the only ultimate end for her would be continued preservation from bodily corruption. A grand ascent into heaven body and soul!
Many Blessings!
Thank you for making htte connection between WWII and Pope Pius’ timing defining & highlightingthis mystery. Can you point us toward more on the topic? THANKS
My father Jesus said Blessed Mary did not go to heaven yet according to John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man
Acts 4:12
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
John 10:1
“Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
JESUS IS MY FATHER AND THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN.
Dr. Howell,
The problem I have with the historical context is that it leaves off the fact that Italy was allied with Germany — it was hardly the case that Germany “invaded” Italy. Italy changed horses nominally only after being invaded by the Allies. Also, it leaves off the fact that our “glorious ally” the USSR had murdered more Christians before the war started, and continued to do so throughout, than Germany ever dreamed of doing with jews. It seems like Pius was actually more sensitive to this fact in the words of his statement.
This is one reason why I became Orthodox, because the content of this dogma, although historically true, cannot be dogma. The Theotokos died in the 50’s a.d. Pentecost took place in 33 a.d. If this teaching is truly a dogma, then it ought to have been taught as necessary for salvation from the day of Pentecost onward. And all the Churches that were first established for 20 years before the dormition of the Theotokos were given an incomplete gospel missing an element necessary for salvation.
You may assert that doctrine can develop, but it develops from that which was given at Pentecost in a single giving, it does not spontaneously generate from events removed 20 years later.
This one act of Rome alone displays the innovative tendencies of Rome and why it cannot be the true Church of Christ, because it dogmatizes an historical event removed from the enlightenment of the apostles at Pentecost. How can this be? And what is the particular christological significance?
I’d like to hear Dr. Howell’s response but mine is this: I think you misunderstand what it means to say that acceptance of a dogma is “necessary” for salvation. Seems like you think of the dogmas of Christianity as though they were necessary ingredients of a healthy diet such that if you don’t have them all you will die. I don’t believe the dogmas are “necessary” in the sense that no one could be saved who didn’t “know” them all. Dogmas are necessary in that once they have been proclaimed to reject them would be to reject the authority of Christ speaking through His Church.
I would say that on the Day of Pentecost, from the moment those 3,000 were cut to the heart, repented and believed and were baptized, they were God’s. Do you imagine that they could not be saved until they were taught every dogma of the faith?
No, but in the enlightenment of the holy apostles by the Holy Spirit, there was a full and complete importation of the truth of every dogma. Christ was known to be God, and the affirmation of such was necessary for salvation because it was necessary to have a true understanding of Christ as God to avoid idolatry: a Christ who is not God in the mind of a believer is a false Christ and therefore an idol. Similarly, a God who is not a Trinity is a false God, and therefore Mary is the God-bearing one, Theotokos, because of how she relates to Christ, being the mother of he who is God. Same with the identity of the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver: all this knowledge of the identity of the persons of the trinity and the identity of Christ is implicit in the enlightenment of the apostles is Pentecost.
But with the dogmatization of the historical event of the Assumption of Mary, where is the Chrisyologicsl significance? And how could it be part of the original apostolic preaching when the event had not even occurred? When James was bishop of Jerusalem, made so by Christ himself by the way, and when those first liturgies were celebrated and the virgin received holy communion with the apostles, was the fullness of the Church present or no? And if yes, how can the assumption even be material for dogmatic pronouncement? It wasn’t even implicitly present in the first 20 years of the life of the Church, how then can it belong to the apostolic deposit of faith? We may say perhaps it’s a true event that really occurred. Fine. But so is the fact that Peter died in Rome, or that James died in Jerusalem, or that many of the dead prophets arose at the time of Christ’s resurrection. Yet the truth of these facts does not demand dogmatic definition. How then can the assumption of the virgin be of dogmatic significance, part of the apostolic preaching from the beginning, and matter even capable of dogmatic definition when it is primarily devotional pious belief?
The key is in your opening statement: “…in the enlightenment of the holy apostles by the Holy Spirit, there was a full and complete importation of the truth of every dogma.” How do you know this?
You make a case that the apostles and Christians from the beginning would have had to have known Christ as God to avoid idolatry. OK. But then you say, “Similarly, a God who is not a Trinity is a false God.” Now, while I agree that the apostles and first Christians understood, at least in some sense, the Trinity, when you say that a God who is not a Trinity is a false God and (your implication) that no one could be saved believing in this “false God,” are you saying that Abraham and Moses and Isaiah and Daniel — who we have no evidence understood that God eternally existed as three Divine Persons — worshipped a false God and weren’t saved?
Again, it’s your assumption that every dogma was a dogma necessary for salvation from day one, and therefore had to be understood and believed from day one, that I believe is mistaken. I believe there was true development of doctrine in the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit and that even as Christians only came over time to “know” that the 27 books we have in our New Testaments were inspired and infallible, so they came over time to understand the implications of Mary’s being the Mother of God the implications of Peter’s being named the Rock, and more.
In regard to the Old Testament prophets, they explicitly worship Christ, the Logos, before his incarnation, as the fathers of the Church teach. No man had ever beheld in a vision, the father. The visions of the prophets are visions of the Logos enthroned in glory prior to his incarnation, this is why in the book of John, the apostle writes that Isaiah “beheld his glory” and the prophet Balaam prophesied, “Behold, I see him, but not near…” and as David says, “The Lord said unto my Lord…”all of which demonstrate, that although the dogmatic expressions regarding the trinity were not yet in use, he who is the Triune God, Father son and spirit, was objectively worshipped by the prophets.
But the dogma was implicit in their actions and in the revelations made to them, and is indeed derived from the proper understanding of the Old Testament Theophanies, culminating in the baptism of Christ in the Jordan where the worship of the Trinity was first clearly manifested.
But the Assumption, again, although it is an historically true fact, does not bear the character of a dogma because it had no connection to the faith preached at Pentecost, which would have been impossible to preach because it had never yet occurred, and therefore cannot even be implicitly present. Where would such teaching even be derived from before the death of the Theotokos? What you are describing is not development of dogma, but continuing revelation. Dogma can only develop from one initial giving of the deposit of faith, because the deposit is while and integral. To accept the Assumption as dogma is to posit the giving of new revelation removed from Pentecost, which is impossible because that constitutes “adding to the gospel.” That is the problem: was the gospel, as preached before the death of Panagia entire or not? If not, you must admit the apostles received partial revelation which would then need to be continuously “ammended” throughout history. Congratulations, you just became Mormon.
But if the explicit and implicit dogmatic content was whole, integral and entire at Pentecost, as it was, then any event removed from Pentecost cannot be dogmatic content. For example, the council of Jerusalem was a doctrinal and disciplinary council and did not add to the gospel, but clarified what was implicit, that the gospel was for all, and that the gentiles need not observe all Jewish rituals to be made Christians. But this is dealing with the content once delivered at pentecost. The same with every other dogma of the first millennium of the 7 ecumenical councils and even local councils approved by ecumenical councils: they elucidate that which was given in the first giving:
But the Assumption simply has no relation to pentecost because it has no implicit relation whatsoever to the first preaching. It therefore belongs to the realm of pious devotion and history, but not Christology, for it merely exemplifies that which is already dogmatically professed in the creed: “I believe in the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.”
Therefore to consider it a dogma is to assent to the error of continuing revelation and to admit that such shallow motives such as political considerations influence the determining of th content of the deposit of faith. This is simply unvarnished innovation, and very unserious really.
I appreciate you bringing in these ideas from the OT but I continue to think you want to make things more explicit than they are — and require for salvation a much more explicit knowledge of doctrine that is required.
On the OT items you mentioned, while I agree that the theophanies of the OT combined with a few passages (e.g. Ps 110) combined with the idea of the logos would have led “some” ancient Israelites to a belief that there was some complexity in God, what you began this discussion by more or less implying that someone would have to believe in the Trinity to be saved because “a God who is not a Trinity is a false God.” The idea that because of the theophanies and Ps 110 and the Greek notion of the Logos, everyone from Seth to Abraham to Moses explicitly believed in a triune God is just something that cannot be supported from Scripture.
And not necessary! As I’ve said, yes, once a doctrine is revealed by a prophet or our Lord or the apostles, then to reject that doctrine is to reject the authority of God speaking and it’s in this sense that we say it is necessary to believe what is revealed in order to be saved. But it’s not (again) like the doctrines are individual vitamins that must all me known and believed in order to have life — as though no one could have “life” and be saved without knowing each of the dogmas.
I think of the man in the temple who beat on his breast and said “God be merciful to me, a sinner” and who our Lord says “went home justified.” According to your argument if this man was not explicitly worshipping the Trinity he was worshipping a false God and could not be saved. My Old Testament is filled with people like Rahab and Ruth who worshipped the true God without there being a shred of evidence that they had the Trinity in their minds or knew anything about Christ or how Christ would save sinners.
On your point about the assumption of Mary being example of continuing revelation, why could it not be viewed as a development of everything else we know about Mary, her uniqueness as the Mother of God and Mother of the Church?
The point is not the need for it to be explicit, but that the implicit is sufficient; but all implicit truth ought to be contained in the single event of Pentecost, because the gospel being preached is one, and therefore if the Assumption is a dogma it ought to be at least implicitly present at Pentecost, otherwise we admit a deficiency in the gospel to which additional truths need to be gradually added.
Let me rephrase it in a question: was the Assumption of Mary as an independent doctrinal teaching at least implicitly present in the apostolic teaching at Pentecost? How and where?
This is an interesting question and I really hope that others will comment who may have a better understanding. But here are my thoughts.
We both believe that public revelation ceased with the deaths of the apostles. No new revelation was given to the Church after that time. But this implies that revelation could have been given to the apostles AFTER Pentecost and during the course of their ministries.
The fact that public revelation ceased with the death of the apostles
(1) doesn’t mean that the Church, led by the Spirit, would not come to an ever deeper understanding of the teaching of Christ and the apostles, as with the two natures of Christ, the Trinity, the role of Peter, and more. We agree on this.
It also (2) doesn’t mean that the apostles might not have been given public revelation during their lives that was not contained at Pentecost. I think of the Revelation of St John as an example, where he received knowledge decades after Pentecost of things that at, least in theory, would not “have” to have been “contained in the single event of Pentecost.”
And then (3) (and I think this is key) the fact that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle also doesn’t mean that the Church might not be led by the Spirit to “know things” that not even the apostles knew. For instance, the exact extent of the Canon of inspired Scripture.
I don’t see how the truth of the Gospel given the apostles at the event of Pentecost would mean that they would know then that one day the letter to the Hebrews will be written and that it will be inspired. Or the book of Jude? Or 2 Corinthians. The idea that inspired writings will come is an idea implicit in Jesus’ commission to his men. But the specific FACT that 2 Corinthians will be written or that St Paul would be caught up into the third heaven was not known until it happened.
Likewise, the truth that those who belong to Christ will be raised from the dead was a part of the teaching and would be known. But the FACT that Mary would be bodily assumed into heaven is something that would not be known until it happened or was revealed to one of the apostles still living. I think you would agree that the assumption “fits” with everything else we know about Mary in her unique role as the Mother of God and Mother of the Church where she experiences in her person what the Church will experience as a whole.
But as a “fact” the assumption is like the inspiration 2 Corinthians, something that would not be known until it happened.
I would like to formally acknowledge to you that I recently went to confession with my Roman Catholic Priest and was reconciled with the Catholic Church. Although I retain some questions, it has become apparent to me that Orthodoxy lacks the Catholicity necessary to the true Church of Christ, specifically in their assertion of certain dogmas that do not have a universal witness, such as Palamism. In fact, the entirety of the Orthodox slant against Roman Catholicism comes from a certain myopia: that only the eastern fathers are really worthy to be treated seriously as fathers, that the west was always on at least a downhill trajectory, and that the particular teaching of a few eastern fathers can be treated as “the patristic consensus.”
In fact, to be Catholic does not mean taking a regional and minimalist approach to the fathers, but a broad and inclusive one: you ought to opt for the broadest non-contradictory understanding of the totality of their teaching in a given area. So for example, the affirmation of the dogmatic content of the filioque CAN be clearly defended by the Latins using fathers from west AND east while utilizing the principle of non-contradiction and allowing each testimony to fill in the other on the details.
The DENIAL of the filioque cannot be supported without ignoring one half of the Church. And I have come to see this happens with virtually every difference the Orthodox have with the Roman Catholics: it is a blinded near-sightedness that tells the individual that a single weighty testimony from a removed context is enough to discredit hundreds of fathers.
Sorry, that is not the spirit of the Church!
Mea Culpa!
Happy to hear! God bless you!!