Dear Rev. Know-It-All,

I read your column last week about whether or not Catholics worship saints. You didn't really answer the question.

And another thing!  In one of your articles I read that there are scriptural precedents for the concept of assumptions or resurrection in the old Testament, but why is there no mention of the most important assumption, that of Mary?

If Mary really did live with St. John, certainly he would have mentioned the assumption. Did Mary outlive St. John?  If not, how does the Church come to such a doctrine other than from the argument that it is "fitting and appropriate " and the result of logical argument based on the prompting of the Holy Spirit?

Your Friend, 

Isaiah Utterweis

As to your first point, the answer is simple. No, Catholics don't worship Mary and the saints. We honor them and love them. If a person worships saints or images and claims to be Catholic, as do, for instance, the santeros or espiritistas, he is mistaken and probably committing the sin of idolatry. I know of no real Catholic who thinks that a piece of plaster is a goddess or even a saint. They are just beloved portraits of members of the family. If they are more than that to someone, he is committing idolatry and superstition and should go to confession.

Are you offended by religious images? Remember what St. James says. "Whoever is guilty of breaking one point of the law is guilty of breaking the whole law."  (James 2:10)

We worship on Sunday, not Saturday.  We eat pork and shrimp which are not kosher. We do not demand circumcision. We don't mind the mixing of wool and linen on the same loom. Etc. Etc. 

We have received a new covenant and all these things are allowed to us. Why shouldn't this be true of religious images, if properly used? We believe that God became visible in the person of Jesus. The invisible realities of heaven have become visible in Christ and the saints. So lighten up! Worship God alone. Enjoy the beauty and pageantry of Catholic art, just don’t worship plaster.

Now on to the next point.

You've got three historical assumptions (no pun intended) going on in your question about Mary's Assumption.

First, you are assuming that we have everything St. John ever wrote. We don't. 

Second, you are assuming that what we have from John was written in his old age because his writings come at the end of the Bible. That's not necessarily so. The Bible isn't a book. It's a library. You don't assume that the books near the door are the oldest books and the ones by the desk are the newest. The different books of the Bible were arranged according to where they fit into certain categories, and sometimes even according to length.

Let's look at the life of St. John and our Blessed Mother, Mary. And mind you all of this is my speculation.

When Jesus was crucified, Mary was probably about 45 years old. If she lived to the age of seventy or 80, (nice round Biblical numbers), she would have died between 60 and 70 AD. The emperor Nero began the persecution of the church around 64 AD at which point Mary who had lived with John may have returned to Jerusalem where the empty tomb thought to be hers stands to this day.

John was quite probably arrested and sent to exile on the island of Patmos where he wrote the Apocalypse which, according to Dr. Hahn, quite a scholar, was written about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem  which occurred in 70 AD.  He seems to have survived his exile and returned to western Turkey where he was the bishop of Ephesus and we have three short letters from that time.

John wasn't writing about Mary’s assumption in any of these documents. Why would he have mentioned it?  “Oh, and by the way, they tell me that Mary’s tomb was found empty. Then the third bowl of God’s wrath....”  We have almost nothing that St. John wrote.

Peter and Paul died in the Neronian persecution around 64 AD.  James, the bishop of Jerusalem, author of the scriptural letter was dead before the destruction of the temple, his letter was probably written around 60 AD. The destruction of the Jerusalem temple was a pivotal event in early Christianity and it is mentioned only in the book of Revelation, and there only in veiled, prophetic language.

It is popular to assume that the New Testament books were written toward the end of the first century. I disagree. I suspect that they were almost all written before the year 68 AD, when Jerusalem was put under siege, or they would have mentioned it. Paul most certainly died around 64 AD, and in the book of Luke/Acts there is no mention of the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, or even of Paul’s own death. That would indicate that Luke and Acts were written at the latest in 63 AD.

NOW MY MAIN POINT ABOUT YOUR SECOND ASSUMPTION!

Mary was probably still alive until after most of the New Testament was written. John was probably the only disciple who outlived her and we have only his Gospel and three very short letters probably from him. We have no idea when he wrote the Gospel though I think it was written anywhere from 60 to 75 AD because it seems to be addressed to the Essenes, to refute the claim that John the Baptist was the Messiah.

Mary’s death and assumption are not mentioned in the very few documents that were written after her death. Neither are a lot of other things, like the destruction of Jerusalem, Pilate's suicide, the deaths of the different apostles and on and on.

Third, your assumption is that the Gospels and other books of the New Testament are histories.

You have to understand that their authors were not writing histories, though the things about which they wrote really happened. The first Christians had no need to write history. They were dealing with news, good news that was spread by word of mouth, which the ancients thought more reliable than a written text. The history of the earliest days comes to us in tradition.

So why should we think that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven?

It is a remarkable fact that, though the tombs containing the relics of the apostles and martyrs of the first century were well known, as well as was the empty tomb of Jesus, when the relics of Mary were sought there were none to be had. The Jerusalem church maintained its tradition that her tomb had been found empty, and though this tradition seems to have been known only locally at first it spread through the wider church. 

Why is it so hard to believe for some?

If you don’t think Mary’s position is unique, do a Google search for Fatima or Zeitoun. 

Mary exercises a unique role as a herald of the kingdom of God, and to me that is both an extension and an explanation for her Assumption.

I know this has been long and technical, but if you want simpler answers, ask simpler questions.

Yours truly,

Rev. Know-It-All