The Four Marian Dogmas

From the seventh century onwards, numerous Church Fathers proclaimed the doctrine of the Assumption (St. Germain of Constantinople, d.733; St. Andrew of Crete d.740; St. John Damascene, d.749, etc.). During the sixth century, the first liturgical feasts dedicated to the Assumption appear in Syria and in the Alexandrian church in Egypt. Western liturgical feasts dedicated to Mary's Assumption take place in Gaul (modern day France) in the seventh century; and by the eighth century it was celebrated in Rome. From the thirteenth century on, the doctrine of Mary's Assumption was taught with near unanimity by Church writers and theologians in both the East and West. (24)

Relation to Other Marian Dogmas

Pius XII makes a major point for the validity of Mary's Assumption as a definable dogma by drawing an essential connection between the Assumption and other Marian-defined dogmas, in particular, the Motherhood of God and the Immaculate Conception.

As for the connection between the Assumption of Mary and her Motherhood of God, Pope Pius XII states that it is fitting that Jesus would honor his Mother as only a divine Son could. No one obeys the fourth commandment of honoring father and mother better than Jesus, who is Son of the Father and Son of Mary. It is thereby reasonable that Jesus would uniquely honor his Mother, first, by preserving her from the corruption of the grave, and secondly, by granting her a glorification of the body in Heaven before the general resurrection of the body for all other saints on the last day. (25)

Even more evident is the Assumption in its essential connection to Mary's Immaculate Conception. Simply put, Mary's Assumption is the natural effect of her Immaculate Conception. The Assumption is the logical effect of being preserved from Original Sin, since corruption of the body is an effect of Original Sin (cf. Rom 5-8; Heb 2). Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they, too, at the end of their earthly life could have been assumed into Heaven without the corruption of their bodies. Corruption of the body is a result of Original Sin. Therefore, since the Mother of God was preserved from Original Sin in her Immaculate Conception, and since she sustained her fullness of grace given by God, Our Lady could not have experienced the fruit of Original Sin in the corruption of the body at the end of her earthly life.

The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are interiorly and logically connected, as Pius XII explains in the papal document:

These two privileges (i.e., the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception) are most closely bound to one another. Indeed, Christ overcame sin and death by His own death, and the man who, through baptism, is supernaturally regenerated, has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. However, as a general rule, God does not wish to grant to the just the full effect of their victory over death until the end of time shall have come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and that only on the last day will they be joined, each to his own glorified soul. Nevertheless, God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general law. By an entirely unique privilege she completely overcame sin through her Immaculate Conception, and therefore was not subject to that law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, nor did she have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body (Munificentissimus Deus, No. 4, 5).

The question may then be asked: Did Mary die? Human death may be defined as a separation of soul and body at the end of earthly life. The Church has never defined whether or not at the end of Mary's earthly life she experienced some temporary separation of soul and body before her Assumption into Heaven. Such a temporary separation of soul and body, as long as it did not include any material corruption of the body (the effect of sin), could have been experienced by the Mother of Jesus. Pius XII purposely avoided any direct statement regarding Mary's death by using the more general expression "at the end of her earthly life." The majority of theologians hold that Mary did experience some type of temporary death so as to enter Heaven in the manner which most closely resembled that of her Son. What is certain is that Mary could not experience the corruption of the body, the "material death" that comes as a result of Original Sin.

The words of Vatican II well attest to the unique event of Mary's glorious Assumption as a proper earthly end to the one who, in all her dogmas, reflects a person of perfect obedience to God's will and of intimate and singular union with her Son, Our Lord:

These four central dogmas of the Blessed Virgin, her Divine Motherhood, Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and Assumption, reveal the unique role of the Virgin of Nazareth in God's perfect plan of salvation.

Surely in light of the sublime graces and privileges poured upon the Virgin and manifested in these dogmas, there was more than ample reason for the Marian self-prophecy that "all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48).

This article was excerpted from Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Queenship, 1993.

Notes

(1) Cf. Gerald van Ackeren, S.J., "Mary's Divine Motherhood" in Carol, ed., Mariology, Bruce, Vol. II, 1957. Juniper Carol, O.F.M., Fundamentals of Mariology, New York, Benzinger Bros., 1957, p. 35-40.

(2) Although some translations have the pronoun "she" for the one crushing the serpent's head, the original Hebrew somewhat favors the masculine "he." But in either case, the victory over Satan is ultimately that of Jesus Christ with Mary's instrumental participation as the "New Eve."

(3) Cf. Carol, Fundamentals, p. 90.

(4) St. Ephraem, Sermones exegetici, opera omnia syriace et latine, 2 (Rome, 1740), 327.

(5) St. Ambrose, Exposito in Psalm 118, Sermon 22, n. 30, PL 15, 1599.

(6) St. Severus, Hom., cathedralis, 67, Patrologia Orientalis (PO) 8, 350.

(7) St. Sophronius, Oral in Deiparae Annunt., 25, PG 87, 3246-3247.

(8) St. Andrew, Hom. 1 in Nativ. Deiparae, PG 97, 913-914.

(9) Theognostes, Horn. in Dorm. Deiparae, PO, Greffin-Nau, 16, 467.

(10) The other principal objection to the Immaculate Conception in the scholastic age was based on the misunderstood notion of how Original Sin was transmitted. Since they erroneously held that Original Sin was transmitted from an infected body to the soul once the soul was created and infused, then Mary would have contracted Original Sin from the fallen nature of St. Anne, her mother. It was Blessed Duns Scotus who correctly clarified that Original Sin consisted rather in the absence of sanctifying grace in the soul at conception, a deprivation caused by the sin of Adam and Eve. Hence, Mary, by the merits of Jesus Christ, was granted that gift of sanctifying grace in her soul at conception.

(11) Cf. Burghart, S.J., "Mary in Eastern Patristic Thought" in Mariology, Vol. II; Carr, "Mary's Immaculate Conception" in Mariology, Vol. I, 1955; O'Carroll, "Immaculate Conception" in Theotokos; Carol, Fundamentals, p. 90-115.

(12) Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum (DS), 256.

(13) St. Augustine, Serm. 189, n.2; PL 38, 1005.

(14) Pope St. Leo, Enchiridion Patristicum (EP) 2182.

(15) Furthermore, it follows that Mary's birth of Jesus would be a painless experience, since pain in childbirth is a punitive effect of Original Sin (cf. Gen 3:15). Mary, being free from the penalty of Original Sin due to her Immaculate Conception, would likewise be free from the penalty of a painful process of childbirth.

(16) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 28, a. 2.

(17) Cf. Carol, Fundamentals, p, 147; Carol, "Mary's Virginity in Partu," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 54, 1954.

(18) DS 214; cf. Burghart, "Mary in Eastern Patristic Thought," Mariology, Vol. II.

(19) Cf. Collins, S.J., "Our Lady's Vow of Virginity" in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 5, 1943.

(20) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q 28, a. 3.

(21) Angelus Address, Castel Gandolfo, September 11, 2005.

(22) Cf. Carol, Fundamentals, p. 185.

(23) St. Gregory of Tours, Libri miraculorum, lib I, cap. 4; PL 71, 708.

(24) Cf. Carol, Fundamentals, p. 188.

(25) Cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950.