Refuting Mizzi's assumptions about the Assumption of Mary

Anonmymous John has asked me how I would respond to Dr. Mizzi's objection to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

Here goes.  Dr. Mizzi's words are in red.  Mine in black.

The Assumption of Mary Refuted
Another Damnable Heresy of Roman Catholicism!
By Dr. Joe Mizzi
The Dogma of the Assumption of Mary

We shall see.

 In the Eastern Church, the dormition ("falling asleep") of Mary began to be commemorated in the 6th  century. The observance gradually spread to the West, where it became known as the feast of the Assumption. By the 13th century most Catholic theologians accepted the belief of the Assumption. However this doctrine did not become an article of faith until recent times, when Pope Pius XII declared it a dogma of the Catholic faith: “The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950).

That is a fairly accurate summary.  But not completely true.  I'll repeat it below with corrections that make it more accurate.

In the  Early Church, the dormition ("falling asleep") of Mary began to be commemorated in the 3rd century. The observance gradually spread to the West, where it became known as the feast of the Assumption. By the 13th century most Catholic theologians accepted the belief of the Assumption. However this doctrine did not become an article of faith until recent times, when Pope Pius XII declared it a dogma of the Catholic faith: “The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950).

Not taught in Scripture

Actually, the very first mention of the Assumption is in Rev 12:1.  There, St. John, the Beloved Disciple who took Mary into his home, mentions for the first time that she is in heaven body and soul.

Revelation 12:1
King James Version (KJV)
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Catholic authors readily admit that the Assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture.1 In the biblical narrative, Mary is last mentioned in Acts 1 where she is found praying with the other disciples before Pentecost. After that, the Bible is silent about her life and death.

The key word there is "explicitly".  However, if we follow Rev 12, we see that the Woman there portrayed is the mother of the child who sits on the throne of God and rules the world with an iron sceptre.  That is the description of the Messiah and the Messiah is Jesus and the mother of the Messiah is Mary.

So, although it is not completely explicit, it is very direct.

Naturally Catholic writes refer to various scriptures to demonstrate the possibility of this doctrine, and that it is was ‘fitting’ that Mary should be assumed to heaven. These efforts fall short of biblical proof.

This is one of those false assumptions I was talking about.  The assumption that every Christian doctrine, except Sola Scriptura, must be explicitly in Scripture.

Consider some examples:

Ok.

§ Genesis 3:15 [And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel] It is argued that Mary, “most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death.” We notice, however, that it is the seed, Jesus, rather that the woman, who bruised the serpent’s head. 

There is a reason why the Latin Vulgate is the official Bible of the Catholic Church.  It is the most accurate rendering of any Bible.  The Catholic Church has never been embarrassed to stand alone in proclaiming a truth.  This is one example.  Let us see what the true rendering of this verse says in the Douay Rheims, the English rendering of the Latin Vulgate.

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. All other renderings say, "he" shall crush thy head. Now, lets look at the original language:

But the original Greek says:

shiyth eybah ishshah sera sera shuwph rash shuwph age 

Literally:

Put enmity woman seed seed bruise head bruise heel

God therefore has put enmity between the Woman and Satan.

And God also put enmity between the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of Satan.

Which is more consistent then in the rendering?  To say that the Seed of the Woman would crush the head of Satan?  Or the Woman will crush the head of Satan.

In my opinion, to be consistent with the original language, it should be written as it is written by the Latin Vulgate.  The Woman will crush the head of Satan. 

His resurrection is the sure sign of Messiah’s triumph over the Devil. Together with all Christians, Mary would also benefit from Christ’s victory according to God’s plan of salvation at the “resurrection of life.” That is still a future event.

I think what he is saying here is that Mary, like the rest of us, will be judged at the Bema Seat of Christ.  What he and all Protestants forget is that the Mother of God has already found favor with God.  That is why she was chosen to be His Mother.  He actually posted the refutation to his statement right below.  But unless it is unpacked correctly, the entire spiritual meaning of the verse is missed.  I unpack it here.

§ Luke 1:28 [And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women]. Bodily assumption is said to be the natural effect of being highly favoured or full of grace. However, the same word translated “full of grace” (Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6.

Not exactly.  Charitoo is the root of the word "kecharitomene", but it is not a synonym.  I'm not an expert on Greek grammar.  I don't speak Greek.  I speak English, but I can't even explain English grammar.  And its much less complex.  So all I can do is link to an explanation by someone who understands the difference.  Suffice to say that "kecharitomene" and "charitoo" are not the same thing.  Kecharitomene means "ever full of grace".  Charitoo does not.

Yet, no-one suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!

Hm?  Who said Mary was dead?  Remember, the doctrine is called the "Dormition" in the East and the Pope did not say that Mary was dead in the proclamation of the Dogma.

And what is the "Rapture" about?  Does the Protestant doctrine of the Rapture say that all those who are believers in God and alive in that time will be assumed into heaven? Or not?  If it is impossible for Mary to be raptured (ahem, I mean "assumed") then how can they be assumed?

§ Revelation 12:1 [And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars]. A Catholic author writes: “Mary's coronation implies her preceding bodily assumption.” He wrongly assumes that this “woman” is Mary and ignores the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, “being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered” (Revelation 12:2); whereas Catholics believe that Mary “gave birth to her Son without pain” (Pope Alexander III).

Wow!  Its hard to unpack all the erroneous assumptions upon which this statement is based.  Let me see if I can summarize it, however.

1.  I think the basic error here is that Mizzi is basing his understanding of Rev 12 on a literalist interpretation of the words of the Scripture.

2.  To illustrate, St. John is narrating a dream.  Not the actual events of Jesus' birth.

3.  In this dream, he is seeing visions which symbolize realities.

4.  For example, the child is born in travail and the Dragon is sitting between the Woman's legs ready to swallow the child up:

Revelation 12:4
King James Version (KJV)
⁴ And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5.  Is that what really happened? No.

6.  Who was actually trying to devour her Child?

Matthew 2:13
King James Version (KJV)
¹³ And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

7.  What does her travail represent then?  Is it that hard to understand?  Even though she delivered the Child without physical pain, is it hard to understand that she was spiritually and emotionally distressed at the news that St. Joseph reported that they had to flee for the Child's life?

None of these and similar scriptures actually prove the bodily assumption.

They don't need to.  Not for Catholic doctrine anyway.  All Catholic doctrine is in Scripture explicit or implied.  It doesn't have to prove a doctrine incontrovertibly.  It must simply, not contradict.  Or to put it more precisely, the doctrine must no contradict the Scripture.

In this case, the Bodily Assumption of Mary is in line with the Biblical Principle that God takes to Himself those who please Him.

This is in contrast to the fact that Protestant doctrines which contradict Catholic Teaching also contradict Scripture.  Take, for example, the teaching of faith alone.  What does Scripture say?

James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
²⁴ Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Can there be a more blatant contradiction?

As Pope Pius XII commented, “Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.” Yet he still based his argument on these writings, thereby conceding that there is no genuine biblical proof of the Assumption.

 Since Pope Pius XII did not specify to which theologians and preachers he was referring.  Therefore, Mizzi's comment is a non sequitur.  The word "often" does not mean "always" or "everyone".

Not taught by the Church Fathers

Pseudo – Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: "Be it done according to your will" (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian

The Lord said to his Mother, "Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens". . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Stay Catholic

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries:

What does that mean, "genuine"?  What needs to be explained here is the difference between an "apocryphal" writing and a "heretical" writing.

Apocrypal means "author unknown".
Heretical means "contrary to orthodox doctrine".

When the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "genuine" it is not saying that the references to the Assumption were heretical before a certain point in time.  It means that the authors of these writings are unknown.

“If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.”2 

St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it.

We don't have all the writings of the Church Fathers.  So, to conclude that the did not write about it because they did not know about it is an assumption made from absence of evidence.   It is very difficult to believe that they didn't write or speak on the topic at all in their lifetime, since in their lifetime, it was already celebrated in the entire Church.  The fact that we have not found their writing or teaching on the subject is the only thing that can be asserted.

In addition, to assume that they did not write about it because they considered it heretical goes against the evidence of history.  It is even more difficult to believe, that, being as fervent for the truth of God as these men obviously were, they could permit a heretical practice to pervade unhindered in the Church.  I mean, these are men that fought and wrote many books against many heresies.  Would they sit by and let the faithful follow a practice that they saw as sinful or heretical?  I think not.  Therefore, if it is true that they wrote nothing about it, it is confirmation that they did not consider the practice heretical nor sinful.

 Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.3 

Before the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared, St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in Mary's sinlessness.  Epiphanius was not bound to believe a doctrine which was not yet officially declared by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

There is another presupposition that must be confronted here,  the idea that Catholic Doctrine always flows from the Magisterium down to the people.  Let me read to you a portion of the Dogma of the Assumption:

....6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church's supreme teaching authority.7. Actually it was seen that not only individual Catholics, but also those who could speak for nations or ecclesiastical provinces, and even a considerable number of the Fathers of the Vatican Council, urgently petitioned the Apostolic See to this effect.8. During the course of time such postulations and petitions did not decrease but rather grew continually in number and in urgency. In this cause there were pious crusades of prayer. Many outstanding theologians eagerly and zealously carried out investigations on this subject either privately or in public ecclesiastical institutions and in other schools where the sacred disciplines are taught. Marian Congresses, both national and international in scope, have been held in many parts of the Catholic world. These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the Virgin Mary's Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church. They have resulted in many more petitions, begging and urging the Apostolic See that this truth be solemnly defined.....

There is a truth of Catholic Doctrine which Protestants do not understand and rarely acknowledge when they do.  We believe as we pray.  Sensus fidelium.  The Sense of the Faithful.

The Holy Spirit guides not only the Magisterium.  But when an overwhelming number of Catholics believes a certain doctrine, this is a strong sign to the Magisterium that the Holy Spirit is speaking through the  faithful.  And they can influence the Magisterium to declare the Dogma infallible.  That is the case here.  From the time that Mary was assumed into heaven, the Catholic faithful celebrated and passed down that Teaching.  And in the fullness of time, the Holy Spirit inspired the Catholic Church to declare the doctrine infallible.

First taught by heretics 

1.  It is first taught by St. John in Rev 12.
2.  It is after believed and practiced by the faithful.
3.  The next writings concerning the Doctrine are written in "apocryphal" works for which we have no knowledge of the authors.
4.  It has never been considered "heretical".

So, how did this teaching originate, given that it is absent in the Sacred Scriptures and in the tradition of the early Church? The belief of the assumption is based on apocryphal and spurious writings.

1.  It is taught in Scripture.
2.  It is practiced by the Early Church as far back as we can go.
3.  It is taught in the writings of the early Church Fathers by the 4th century.

Here's a strange, if not outright hypocritical idea.  Lets assume that Mizzi is right and the first writing of the Doctrine of the Assumption occurred in the 6th century.  Protestant doctrines arose in the 15th century. By that logic, Mizzi should abandon the Protestant "Sola" doctrines.  The Early Church did not write about them.

“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).

True.

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine.4 However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings.

Not true.   An English Translation of the teaching is here.  Note that:

1.  Pope Gelasius listed a group of apocryphal writings and a group of heretical writings.
2.  He ordered that Catholics avoid the apocryphal writings.
3.  He condemned the heretical writings and their authors.
4.  The writing is not an infallible statement issued from the Chair of Peter to the entire Church.

Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century.5 It is ironic that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century.

Again, it was never declared heretical.  It was recognized apocryphal.  In other words, the Church recognizes that they don't actually know the author.

Conclusion
a) The Roman Church solemnly warns anyone who “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus). How could this dogma be so important, seeing that it was unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes, and more importantly, since it is absent from the Holy Scriptures? Some have indeed fallen from the catholic faith. The apostates are those who have invented this novel doctrine. The faithful are those who, together with the early Christians, have remained steadfast in upholding the faith of the New Testament.

All he is doing here is summarizing his errors.
1.  The doctrine was first taught by St. John in the book of Revelations chapter 12.
2.  Historical evidence shows that it was practiced from the earliest times in history.  As soon as it was possible to do so.
3.  The practice was never condemned by any Popes.
4.  The Early Church Fathers began to explain the doctrine in the 4th century.

b) In theory, the Roman Church teaches that:
1. The sacred deposit of the faith (the Word of God) is contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.2. The Magisterium gives an authentic interpretation to the Word of God but does not add to its contents.

That is true.

"The apostles entrust the 'Sacred deposit' of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church...[the Magisterium] teaches only what has been handed on to it...All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith" (Catechism, 84-86).

Also true.

In practice, Rome teaches doctrines that are not drawn from the deposit of faith. We have seen that the Assumption is neither found in Scripture nor in the early church tradition. Certainly, if this doctrine were transmitted by the apostles to the bishops of the early church, we would expect to find at least some references to it in the voluminous writings of the Fathers. But they are conspicuously silent about this subject.

If you are a Catholic, ask yourself whether your implicit trust in the Roman magisterium is warranted. The magisterium claims to explain the Word of God, but at least in this case, it has gone far beyond it's stated role. It is inventing novel doctrines beyond the Word of God. Be careful! You may feel convinced that your faith is built on a solid rock, when in fact, you are standing on sinking sand.

His summary of his errors continues.  Hopefully by now you have isolated his erroneous assumptions, his contradictory logic, and his error in facts which combined lead him to a complete misunderstanding both of this Catholic doctrine and of Catholic Teaching in general.

c) Catholic theology has exalted Mary to the heavens, and it is therefore natural for Catholics to look to her for their spiritual needs. “O most sweet Lady and our Mother, thou hast already left the earth and reached thy kingdom, where, as Queen, thou art enthroned … From the high throne, then, to which thou art exalted, turn, O Mary, thy compassionate eyes upon us, and pity us.” (Of the Assumption of Mary, St. Alphonsus de Liguori).

God exalted Mary.  We simply obey His will.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the sad truth is that such Marian devotion detracts from that simple faith and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Scripture explicitly speaks of Jesus, who having lived a sinless life, died for sinners, was buried and raised from the death, and after forty days He ascended into Heaven, where He is reigning in glory, interceding for His people. Compassion and pity is found only when we have recourse to the Lord Jesus. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Hebrews 7:25,26).

Marian devotion is taught by God in Scripture.  Please refer to this article.

Endnotes
"Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false." Immaculate Conception and Assumption; Catholic Answers; http://www.catholic.com/St. Gregory of Tours lived in the 6th Century; St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem lived in the 7th Century; St. John Damascene lived in the 8th Century."But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary's death…for her end no-one knows." (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40)."The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209-210).Webster, W; Marian Dogmas in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; Banner of Truth Trust, 1995; pp. 81-85.© Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission is given by the author to copy this article without any changes.

The rest are just references.  Nothing there to rebut.

John,

I hope this helps.  If you have any other questions on this or any other challenges to Catholic Doctrine, don't hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

De Maria