Sect. 215Mary’s Death, Incorruptibility, and Assumption Into HeavenMary’s Death, Incorruptibility, and Assumption Into Heaven

I. There are two methods of treating of the end of Mary’s life on earth—the historical and the theological. Death, incorruption of the body, and resurrection, are facts observable by eye-witnesses, and therefore matter of history and tradition. But in the case of the Blessed Virgin, as in that of our Lord, these facts may also be studied from theological sources of knowledge. Since the Vatican Council was petitioned to define the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, a vast amount of literature, historical and theological, has been produced on the question. The outcome of the historical researches has proved unsatisfactory to the defenders of the traditional view; no contemporary evidence, no reliable testimony connecting later traditions with the facts, is forthcoming. From purely historical sources the current belief in Mary’s bodily assumption cannot be proved. This belief, however, has in theological principles so solid a foundation, that many theologians think it ripe for dogmatic definition. “Did Mary in her bodily life share the common lot of mankind, or did she in this, as in her spiritual life, participate in the privileges of her Son?” Such is the question which theology has to solve.

II. That Mary underwent death is a universal belief in the Church. Yet her death is less certain than her glorification. For this latter admits of positive proof from revelation, whereas the former cannot be proved convincingly either from history or revelation. In fact, the law of death as revealed only punishes fallen mankind; but Mary was exempted from original sin, therefore also from its penalty, death. Again, her death cannot be proved as a consequence of her mortal nature, for in her case the claim of nature is superseded by a supernatural claim to immortality. The same would have been true of Adam, had he not sinned. Mary’s claim to a life unbroken by death rests upon her Divine Motherhood; but as she is the Mother of Him who died for us, it was fitting that she should die also, lest her and her Son’s human natures should be thought unreal, and the Mother privileged above the Son. Mary, then, died because Jesus died; but her death was not necessarily the effect of violence—it being undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as the effect of disease from which, like Jesus, she was exempt. Since the Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of Love, her great desire to be united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them. Her “passing away” is a sacrifice of Love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her life; it is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die.

III. Death is an evil not degrading in itself; nay, under certain circumstances it is even honourable. Corruption of the body, on the contrary, is of itself associated with ideas of dishonour: even in the body of the just it is looked upon as a result of God’s curse on sin. Hence, corruption of the body is incompatible with the dignity and position of Mary. The body of the Mother of Christ and Bride of the Holy Ghost could not be allowed to fall a prey to vile corruption. To the Virgin, who conceived without knowing man, who brought forth without lesion, whose flesh without concupiscence had encompassed Divinity, the words of the Psalmist may be applied: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; nor wilt Thou give Thy holy one to see corruption” (Ps. 15:10). The Fathers love to connect Mary’s incorruption after death with her virginal integrity during life. No theologian impugns this privilege. Mary’s incorruptibility is theologically so certain that it may be used as an argument for her speedy resurrection.

IV. A lifeless body, however incorrupt, is still under the dominion of death. If, then, Mary’s body was preserved intact because though dead it was not under the law of death, its separation from the soul could only last a short time. The words (Ps. 15:10) quoted by St. Peter (Acts 2:24) to prove the resurrection of Christ, have likewise force to prove the resurrection of Mary, inasmuch as she shared with Him the privilege of incorruptibility. As from the beginning she was associated with her Son in the conflict against sin and evil (Gen. 2:15), so must she also be associated with Him in the final victory and triumph. Further theological considerations, based upon the grace of Motherhood, may help to strengthen this proof. 1. Protracted death would be an unbecoming interruption of Mary’s Motherhood, since she is Mother by her body. 2. The Bride of Christ ought not to be separated from her Bridegroom beyond the term required by the object of the union. If “husbands must love their wives, as Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself up for it” (Eph. 5:25), and if Mary is the type, and the first member of the Church, and if she enjoys the first and greatest love of the Head of the Church, how can her body be dead to Him? 3. The commandment to honour father and mother, the promises made to the Saints of a participation in the Divine nature, the fact that Mary’s substance formed the substance of her Son—all these require the completest honour to the body of Mary. Other proofs from types in the Old Testament are current among the Fathers; especially the incorruptible wood of the Ark of the Covenant.

V. 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. Again, whatever traditional evidence there is, e.g. the early celebration of the feast of the Assumption, acquires increased force from the theological arguments, and vice versâ.