I have a question about the Assumption of Mary and 1 Timothy 6:16, I understand that Mary both Body and Soul are in heaven, like Christ, meaning her flesh is immortal and cannot die anymore. But Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:16 that *Jesus alone* is immortal, So how can we answer this? How can the Assumption of Mary fit with what Paul wrote to Timothy here? Main Question: How can Mary have immortal body in heaven when Paul said only Jesus alone hath immortality (Talking about the flesh). > "...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times > he shall shew, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and > Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which > no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power > everlasting." 1 Timothy 6:15-16 K.J.V.

I am currently investigating Catholic/Protestant theological differences. In trying to understand arguments about the immaculate conception of Mary, I began reading St. Thomas Aquinas, when I stumbled across something unusual. In [*Summa Theologica*, Part 3, Question 7, Article 1](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article1) , Aquinas addresses the issue of Mary's sanctification before birth. Aquinas references St. Augustine, supposedly in a work on Mary's Assumption: >I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. **But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this;** so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. My question is this: **Did St. Augustine write a tractate on the Assumption of Mary?** I am aware that the Assumption is generally considered a late belief (and the earliest explicit quote I could find is from Epiphanius in 350AD, although it is debated). I imagine if a father as prominent as St. Augustine wrote a whole tractate on the belief, that would be a major piece of evidence. Is it perhaps a lost work of his, or maybe a medieval forgery that Aquinas thought was real? Any information would be appreciated.

Both the Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe that the blessed Virgin Mary when she ascended into heaven was crowned as the queen of heaven by our Lord Jesus Christ, did any of the Early Church Fathers believe in the queenship of Mary? - this can be between 80-800 AD

The Marian dogmas are taught by the Catholic Church, but it is commonly held that some of the Marian doctrines such as her bodily accent to heaven are not biblical. But if Catholics believe revelation has ceased, where does this idea come from?

One site that tourists can visit in Jerusalem is the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary . But Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the Assumption of Mary (that she was taken body and soul into heaven). How does Mary have a tomb if there was no body to bury because she was taken into heaven?

Pope Pius XII proclamation on the Dogma of Mary's Assumption in 1950 ([_Munificentissimus Deus_](http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html)) was silent on how Mary's death description was. Eastern Orthodox believed in dormition. There are also some who believed that the death & assumption occurs simultaneously. However, Blessed Catherine Emmerich's visions and revelation provide a good theme for filling in the light needed to harmonize the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. My question is based on Blessed Catherine writings: **How does her narration harmonize the missing description of the Church when it proclaimed the 4th Marian dogma of the Assumption?** (as Pope Pius XII left description of death unclear).

Was the Assumption of Mary a belief in the early church? If so, where's the evidence? The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church. On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII, exercising papal infallibility, declared in Munificentissimus Deus that it is a dogma of the Church "that 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." As a dogma, the Assumption is a required belief of all Catholics; anyone who publicly dissents from the dogma, Pope Pius declared, "has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith." The question is asked because the Bible is silent about this matter.

This question is addressed to East Orthodox or Catholics that hold to the teaching of Mary's assumption. Is there any dogma or tradition concerning whether she was assumed while indoors? And if she was, how could this be achieved if her physical body rose? Surely she could not have just passed through the ceiling with ease.

There are some reasons considered by the Catholic Church to assume the Incarnation even without the Fall . Simply speaking, Jesus would come even if Adam and Eve would not have eaten the apple. There are good biblical arguments (Romans 5:12-21 ) that there will be no (human) death. This concept does not contradict science as treated by Aquinas and interpreted here . An important aspect of incarnation is radical God's self-giving, the kenosis that happened by the death on cross. I assume that also people shall practice similarly radical self-giving (John 15:13 ). **Question:** How it would be possible to lay down one's life for one's friends if there is no death? **Note:** I heard somewhere that there would be some transition like this, just without sorrow and pain. Similar to Mary's assumption. How it would look like? Would the person after the transition still be on the Earth? I would appreciate Catholic position.

I've heard that in Columbia there is a rich tradition around celebrating the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary. It's a very important feast in the Catholic Church, but it's usually not observed within the domestic church: that is, observed by the family considered as a specifically Catholic community. So, what is it that spurred certain Catholic groups into having traditions around the feast and how do Catholic families celebrate it as a feast unique from other Marian feasts?

# Problem description # A protestant made the following two arguments about the assumption of Mary: 1. A catholic that doesn't accept the assumption of Mary will be excommunicated from the Catholic church 2. A catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary ---------- # Questions # - Are these arguments correct? - Is the assumption of Mary a salvific issue for Catholics? - If it's not a salvific issue why is it "good" to believe in it as a Catholic? The last question was asked from a Catholic perspective.

In the article, [The Assumption of Mary: A Belief since Apostolic Times](https://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/aofmary.htm) of EWTN it states: >At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that **"Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."** What is the source of this spurious quote?

As described in [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2952/16688) to a question about infallible papal statements, there are two teachings that were clearly given *ex cathedra*: the Immaculate Conception (that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born sinless) and the Assumption of Mary (that Mary at the end of her life went body and soul into heaven). Moreover, all Catholics are required to believe in it and not believing it means you are separated from the church. From my Protestant perspective, I'm struggling to understand why these two dogmas are such a big deal that all Catholics *must* believe in them. I mean, I get that the Church has taken a stance on it and that they would like everyone to believe in it. But there are other statements of faith that the Church holds as true yet doubt or disbelief doesn't expel you from the Church. I'm not seeing why these matters are so important to warrant that. It seems to me that how Mary's life began and ended is between her and God and I'm not understanding how that is relevant to me and my salvation. Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that the popes, by speaking *ex cathedra*, require all Catholics to believe in them?

In _Munificentissimus Deus_ Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: > By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that 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. I can understand the need to define the fact that the body of the Blessed Mother is in Heaven, but was Mary not already a canonised saint before the document was produced? Even the protestant reformers did not contest the sainthood of Mary.

The Catholic Church has a few teachings about the Mother of our Lord that are not accepted by many Protestants. This is not evident in the doctrines of many early Protestant reformers including Luther, Zwigli, and Bucer. From a theological standpoint, many protestant viewpoints do not differ significantly from the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning Mary. Calvin, on the other hand, does. For instance, Calvin disagreed with the practice of calling Mary the "mother of God," saying, >"I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. ... To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. Consider for example, - The Immaculate Conception of Mary - The Assumption of Mary - The perpetual virginity of Mary - The intercessory role of Mary It's been said that Calvin's genius was not in creating new ideas but in developing existing thought to its logical conclusion. Did Calvin comment on these doctrines? What were his conclusions?

> If you are looking for direct scriptural proof of this dogma, you will not find any. Mary’s Assumption was not explicitly recorded in Scripture. However, Pope Pius XII formally defined the dogma of the Assumption in his apostolic constitution **[Munificentissimus Deus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munificentissimus_Deus)** on November 1, 1950: "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" (source ) My Question: - What is the Catholic theological basis for the Munificentissimus Deus? If it wasn't recorded in Scripture, and we don't have any archaeological evidence to support it, then what did Pope Pius XII use as a basis?

The Assumption of Mary states that after she died on Earth she went to Heaven. What is the Biblical basis for the idea that she, or any other person who died after Jesus' resurrection, is already in Heaven?

Catholic doctrine asserts that Mary the Mother of Jesus was not only without sin and ever-virgin, but that she also ascended into Heaven. Some Eastern traditions hold that she even died, then was raised on the third day. The _Catechism of the Catholic Church_ States, in paragraph 974: >The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of His Body. From Wikipedia: >Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. "...Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come. What is the biblical basis for this doctrine?

Assuming for the moment that the Assumption of Mary is a historical event (a statement with which certainly some Christians disagree), which books of the New Testament can be considered as written after the assumption of Mary?