The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption
A Catholic Answers Tract
The Marian doctrines are, for fundamentalists, among the most annoying of the doctrines
most people identify as peculiarly Catholic. Fundamentalists disapprove of any talk about
Mary as the Mother of God, as the Mediatrix, as the Mother of the Church. In this tract
we'll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that fundamentalist writers frequently complain
about, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Catholic exegetes, in discussing the Immaculate Conception, first look at the
Annunciation. Gabriel greeted Mary by saying, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with
you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek kecharitomene.
This word actually represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel,
and it must on that account express a characteristic quality of Mary. What's more, the
traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in
many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of
"highly favored daughter." True, Mary was a highly favored daughter of God, but
the Greek implies more than that.
The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys, something the older
English versions convey, which is that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene
is charis, after all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a
perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively.
The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete
as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from
More Than Highly Favored
That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of
her existence to have been called "full 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 to bear children.
(By the way, one should keep in mind what the Immaculate Conception is not. Some
non-Catholics think the term refers to Christ's conception in Mary's womb without the
intervention of a human father; 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. 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. The essence of Original Sin consists in the lack
of sanctifying grace. Mary was preserved from this defect; from the first instant of her
existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace.)
Fundamentalists' chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary's
consequent sinlessness--which is what her life-long state of sanctifying grace implies--is
that Mary was but a creature, and we are told that "All have sinned" (Rom.
3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke
1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior. Since Mary was a sinner, she couldn't have been
Take the second citation first. The Church has a simple and sensible answer to this
difficulty. It is this: Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam,
by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting Original Sin. But by a
special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was
preserved from the stain of Original Sin and certain of its consequences. She was
therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47.
Have All Sinned?
But what about Rom. 3:23, "All have sinned"? Fundamentalists, as a rule,
think it means more than that everyone is subject to Original Sin. They think it means
everyone commits actual sins. They conclude it means Mary must have sinned during her
life, and that certainly would speak against an Immaculate Conception.
But is the fundamentalists' reasoning solid? Not really. Think about a child below the
age of reason. By definition he can't sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason
and the ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before ever committing an actual sin,
because he isn't mature enough to know what he is doing, what act of his brings him under
their interpretation of Rom. 3:23? None, of course.
Paul's comment to the Christians in Rome thus would seem to have one of two meanings.
Despite the phrasing, it might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to
the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Mary, would
be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that
everyone, without exception, is subject to Original Sin [i.e., all of Adam's descendents
are subject to the results of his fall, unless they are redeemed by Christ], which is true
for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary--but she, though otherwise she would have
been subject to it, was preserved from its stain by her Son's redemptive work.
It took a positive act of God to keep her from coming under its effects the way we
have. We had the stain of Original Sin removed through baptism, which brings sanctifying
grace to the soul (thus making the soul spiritually alive and capable of enjoying heaven)
and makes the recipient a member of the Church. We might say that Mary received a very
special kind of "baptism" at her conception, though, because she never
contracted Original Sin, she enjoyed certain privileges we never can, such as entire
avoidance of sin.
A Question of Lowliness
On occasion one will hear that the Immaculate Conception can't be squared with Mary's
own description of herself: "he has looked graciously on the lowliness of his
handmaid" (Luke 1:48). How could she be lowly if she were, as Catholics say, the
highest creature, what the poet Wordsworth called "our tainted nature's solitary
boast"? If she understood herself to be lowly, doesn't that mean she understood
herself to have sinned?
The key is that sin is not the only motive for lowliness. Compared to God, any
creature, no matter how perfect, is lowly, Mary included. Jesus, referring to his human
nature, said, "Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart" (Matt.
11:29). Certainly he was without sin, and if he could describe himself as lowly, there can
be no argument against Mary describing herself the same way.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in
1854. When fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time,
they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from
time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the
impression that no dogma is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a
formal statement about it.
Actually, dogmas are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be
cleared up or when the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) 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. Pius IX, who
was highly devoted to the Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their
devotion to her.
As they reject the Immaculate Conception and Mary's perpetual virginity, so
fundamentalists reject the dogma of the Assumption, but they don't worry about it much.
What little thought they give to it concerns why Catholics think Mary didn't die. That
isn't the Catholic position, of course, but fundamentalists think it is, and they are
concerned about a privilege which finds no warrant in Scripture.
They note that Enoch "walked with God, and he was seen no more because God took
him" (Gen. 5:24). He was translated so as not to see death (Heb. 11:5). And then
there was Elijah, who was taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot (4 Kings 2:1-13). But
the Bible says nothing about what happened to Mary, and doesn't it seem that there would
be some mention of her never dying? After all, it would have been truly
There is a certain sense in their argument, and if the doctrine of the Assumption were
what they think it is, the argument would carry some weight. But it is beside the point
because Catholic commentators, not to mention the popes, have agreed that Mary died; that
belief has long been expressed through the liturgy. (The Church has never formally defined
whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not
impaired if she did not die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did in fact
The Assumption is therefore simpler than fundamentalists fear, though still not
acceptable to them. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary,
"after the completion of her earthly life"--note the silence regarding her
death--"was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven." In short, her body
wasn't allowed to corrupt, it was not allowed to remain in a tomb.
True, no express scriptural proofs for the doctrine are available. But the possibility
of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is not excluded by 1 Cor. 15:23, and it is
even suggested by Matt. 27:52-53: "and the graves were opened, and many bodies arose
out of them, bodies of holy men gone to their rest: who, after his rising again, left
their graves and went into the holy city, where they were seen by many."
And there is what might be called the negative historical proof. As every
fundamentalist knows, from the first Catholics gave homage to saints, including many about
whom we now know nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most
famous saints. Rome, for example, claims the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter's tomb being
under the high altar of the Basilica that bears his name. Other cities claim the mortal
remains of other saints, both famous and little-known.
We know that the bones of some saints were distributed to several cities, so more than
one, for example, are able to claim the "head" of this or that saint, even if
the "head" is only a small portion of the skull. With a few exceptions (such as
Peter, who was only claimed by Rome, never, for example, by Antioch, where he worked
before moving on to Rome), the more famous or important the saint, the more cities wanted
We know that after the Crucifixion Mary was cared for by the apostle John (John 19:26-
27). Early Christian writings say John went to live at Ephesus and that Mary accompanied
him. There is some dispute about where she ended her life; perhaps there, perhaps back at
Jerusalem. Neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims
about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary?
Apparently because there weren't any bones to claim and people knew it.
Remember, in the early Christian centuries relics of saints were jealously guarded,
highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Colosseum, for instance, were quickly
gathered up and preserved; there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who
gave their lives for the faith. Yet here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all
the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being
Most arguments in favor of the Assumption, as developed over the centuries by the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, concern not so much scriptural references (there are
few that speak even indirectly to the matter), but rather the fittingness of the
privilege. The speculative grounds considered include Mary's freedom from sin, her
Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and--the key--her participation in the
salvific work of Christ. It seems most fitting that she should attain the full fruit of
the Redemption, which is the glorification of the soul and body.
But there is more than just fittingness. Pius XII said the Assumption is really a
consequence of the Immaculate Conception. "These two singular privileges bestowed
upon the Mother of God stand out in most splendid light at the beginning and the end of
her earthly journey. For the greatest possible glorification of her virgin body is the
complement, at once appropriate and marvelous, of the absolute innocence of her soul,
which was free from all stain. ... [S]he shared in [Christ's] glorious triumph over sin
and its sad consequences."
"But," ask fundamentalists, "if Mary was immaculately conceived, and if
death was a consequence of Original Sin, why did she die?" 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 effect our redemption; he could 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.
(It is also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think
Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That's not correct. 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.)
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none.
It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to
teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the
Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.
Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola
scriptura. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that
if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is
false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which,
though not in contradiction to Scripture, cannot be found on its face. (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.)
Continue on to History of the Doctrine of the Immaculate
Continue on to History of the Doctrine of the Assumption
More than 100 other Catholic Answers tracts are available from:
P.O. Box 17490
San Diego, CA 92117
(c) 1996 Catholic Answers, Inc. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private
reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically
or otherwise, without express written permission from the copyright holder.