THE GROWTH OF A DOCTRINE
I would like to present a question and answer from the book, The Question Box, by Rev.
Bertrand L. Conway, bearing the Imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes. The book was written in
1929, so it was before the official declaration of the Assumption by Pius XII, but it reveals a great
deal about how such a doctrine came into being. Here are the questions and the answer:
"Is there any Biblical or historical proof of the ascension of the Virgin Mary into heaven? Is the Assumption a dogma of the faith?" Ans. "The dogma of the Assumption means the Blessed Virgin's entrance into heaven, body and soul by the power of God. The active term Ascension is used only of Jesus Christ's entrance into heaven by His own divine power. The doctrine has never been defined by the Church, although it's wide acceptance since the sixth century renders it a certain doctrine, that cannot be denied by Catholics without rashness.
"It cannot be proved from the Bible, or from contemporary historical witness, but it rests on such solid theological principles that many Bishops have written the Apostolic See, requesting it's definition as a dogma of faith.
"Some may think it strange that the Fathers of the first five centuries do not mention it. But as St. Augustine says: 'There are many things that the universal Church maintains and that we reasonably believe were preached by the Apostles, although they never have been put in writing' (De Bapt., v., 23). We can readily conjecture reasons for their silence. Perhaps they feared that certain heretics, like the Valentinians, might cite this doctrine in proof of their errors concerning the Body of Christ. Perhaps again they wished to keep the cultus of the Blessed Virgin in the background on account of the prevalent idolatry. Moreover, when bitter controversy was being waged on such important dogmas as the Trinity and the Incarnation, less important doctrines might well be ignored.
"It certainly seems most fitting that the body of the Immaculate Mother of God should not taste corruption, and that it should share in the triumph of her Son, the Risen Christ. Kellner tells us that the feast of the Assumption in the East is older than the sixth century, for it was celebrated by the heretical sects that separated from Rome in the fifth century, viz., the Monophysites, the Nestorians, the Armenians and the Ethiopians. The most ancient writer to speak of it in the West is St Gregory of Tours (539) who writes: 'The Lord has the most holy body of the Virgin taken into heaven, where, reunited to her soul, it now enjoys with the elect, happiness without end.'"
From the quote just presented, we can see that as far as the Assumption is concerned, Roman
Catholic authorities readily admit that there is no biblical evidence to support it, nor is there any
contemporary historical evidence to support it. Lack of substantive evidence proves no problem
to them. One Roman Catholic writer put it this way: "Mary's corporeal assumption into heaven is
so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the
church can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact." (The Manual of Catholic
Theology).
Again from the statement from the Question Box, we find it admitted that the early church was
silent on the subject for the first five centuries. Several conjectured reasons were given for this
silence, and yet the most obvious reason for the silence was left out - that being that the early
church knew nothing of an Assumption of Mary and did not believe it.
Finally, over 500 years after the establishment of the Church, Gregory of Tours mentions the
Assumption of Mary in his book, In Gloriam Martyrum. While nothing is said of the nature of
Gregory's book in the Question Box quote, it is little more than a fairy tale. The book tells that as
Mary lay dying the apostles gathered around her bed. Into this scene Jesus appears with His
angels and commits the soul of Mary to the care of Gabriel and her body is carried away in a
cloud. Of this story, Tanis remarks in What Rome Teaches, "There is no more evidence for the
truth of this legend than for the ghost stories told by our grandfathers." It is utterly unbelievable
that such a legend could have grown into an official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
The quote from the Question Box also told us that the doctrine rested upon solid theological
principles. What are those principles? I want us to notice an amazing uniformity in approach. In
the Question Box quote we saw it stated, "It certainly seems most fitting..." John of Damascus,
an 8th century writer, wrote in Homily 2 on the Assumption, "It was fitting that she, who had
kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after
death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a Child at her breast, should dwell
in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to Himself,
should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who has seen her Son upon the Cross
and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act
of giving birth to Him, should look upon Him as He sits at the right hand of the Father. It was
fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be
honored by every creature as the Mother and as the Handmaid of God."
Even Collier's Encyclopedia says, "In the absence of a dogmatic pronouncement, modern
theologians generally believe that Mary died. Though they admit she was not bound by the law of
mortality, because of her exemption from sin, (this is another subject altogether - g.l.) they believe
it was fitting that Mary's body should resemble that of her Son, who allowed Himself to die for
the salvation of men."
I think that we can recognize the "solid theological principles" involved here. They can be
summed up with the words, "It certainly seemed fitting..." In other words, "It seems like it ought
to be true, therefore it is." I wonder if any Roman Catholic theologian would like to be tried for a
crime on the basis of "It certainly seems fitting that he did it," or if they would be willing to
"dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact"?
Four years before defining the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith, Pius XII asked all of the bishops in communion with Rome whether or not they believed it and, if so, whether or not a solemn declaration was in order. Practically the whole episcopate answered yes to both questions, so Pius XII decided to make it official. My friends, the basis for the declaration was, "We believe it, therefore it is true." It has been readily admitted that there is no scriptural or historical evidence to prove this doctrine, and the personal beliefs of the Roman Catholic bishops are not good enough. (From "Catholicism Examined," Edited by Greg Litmer and David Riggs, p. 141-143).