"St. John the Theologian" is just another name for St. John the Apostle or St. John the Evangelist. The account cited above was written or published in A.D. 400; therefore, it was not written by St. John himself, who died in A.D. 100. But by putting St. John's name in the title, whoever wrote this apocryphal work was tacitly claiming that the account came from St. John as its source. But there is no certainty that the account contained in the document actually came from St. John. And because this is an apocryphal work, which means that it is not guaranteed to be free of doctrinal error, there is no certainty that the events narrated in the account actually happened. Therefore, the Church does NOT base its dogma on the assumption of Mary on this apocryphal account. As will be shown later, the belief in the assumption of Mary was based more on Mary's distinction as the Mother of God and her close association with Jesus Christ than on the existence of any Patristic document. The cited apocryphal account is, therefore, really worthless except as archaeological evidence that the idea of Mary's assumption was in the Church since A.D. 400 and probably since the time of St. John. It merely points to the existence of the belief but is not the source of that belief.

​

Some people were concerned about the reality of the assumption because of the Church Fathers' silence on the subject. However, an argument based on silence alone is known to be a weak one. If one examines the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, one can see that the scrolls never said anything about Christ or His ministry, but they did say a lot about the world in which Christ lived. If one were to argue based only on the silence of the scrolls about Jesus, one might conclude that Christ never existed. Yet we know that Christ and the community at Qumran were contemporaries.

​

Although authentic statements from the Church Fathers relating to Mary's assumption into Heaven are lacking, the surprising thing is that the entire Church—both the east and the west—celebrated the Feast of the Assumption, usually on the 15th of August, from the seventh century on. This is truly remarkable. How could bishops from all over the world suddenly agree on a liturgical practice commemorating Mary's bodily assumption unless such a belief was already universally held in the Church's Tradition? Usually, a doctrine, such as the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception, is preceded by debates and deliberation by the Fathers and by the Church Councils and takes time to gain universal consensus. In the case of Mary's bodily assumption, however, no record of such discussions or debates exists, strangely betraying the absence of any disagreement on this matter by the various churches of the east and the west. Paradoxically, the absence of documentation about Mary's bodily Assumption during the first six centuries of the Christian era, far from being an argument for the non-existence of this belief, turns out to be a strong indicator of its existence. 

​

​

The Death of Mary

 

The death (or "dormition") of Mary was not part of the dogma defined by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus. The text of the Apostolic Constitution purposely avoided the issue of death and simply stated that the Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into Heaven, thus leaving the question of her death open. Indeed, theologians are still divided on their opinions on whether the Virgin Mary died or not, but Mary's assumption may no longer be doubted. It is now an article of faith.

​

There is no record of when Mary died, if she died, or where she was buried. Those who do not believe that Mary died base their belief on Mary's sinlessness. They say that since death was a penalty for sin and Mary was perfectly sinless, she did not need to die or pay the consequences of sin.

​

Those who believe that Mary died a natural death say that her death was not a penalty for original sin or any actual sin but was due merely to the inherent weakness of the human body, which, without the preternatural gift of immortality—a gift granted to Adam and Eve—would naturally die. Man was not made immortal from the beginning, unless by a special privilege. Christ took human nature without this special privilege so that He could accomplish the work of our redemption. Likewise, Mary was born without the gift of immortality so that she could participate in the sorrows of her Son. Unlike Christ, who actually died on the Cross, Mary did not die a bloody death but suffered a "spiritual martyrdom" in seeing her Son brutally tortured on the Cross. This is why she is also honored as the "Queen of Martyrs," although she died a natural death.

​

Although theologians are divided on the question of Mary's death, the majority seem to favor the view that Mary died. But those who believe this also believe that our Lady died a peaceful death, that she died because of her intense love for her Son, and that, although she died, her body never saw corruption or decay, in accordance with the words of the Psalmist: "nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption" (Ps 15:10). Preserved from corruption, Mary's body was raised from the dead after three days, and she was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven.

​

Among those who believed in Mary's death was St. John Damascene (A.D. 676–750), who left us three homilies on the assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

​

​

Justification of the Dogma of the Assumption

​

The dogma of the assumption of Mary cannot be proved directly, but it could be justified. Unlike a proof, which consists of direct quotations from the Holy Scripture explicitly referencing the dogma, a justification of the tradition merely shows why the dogma is credible or worthy of belief. 

​

The reasons that justify belief in the assumption of Mary are the following:

 

First, there were precedents to Mary's assumption; for example, 

​

• Enoch, who was reputed to "walk with God" and who lived before the Great Flood, was translated (or transferred) to heaven, according to Gen 5:24. St. Paul explained in Heb 11:5 that God took him from earth to prevent his death. However, Enoch could not have entered the proper Heaven of the saints because he did not die yet, whereas "it is appointed unto men once to die" (Heb 9:27). So, which "heaven" was he taken to? In the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas, the "heaven" that Enoch entered was not the empyrean Heaven of the saints (where Christ and Mary also exist with their human bodies), but an extra-terrestrial paradise similar to the Garden of Eden (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part III, Q. 49, Art. 5, Reply to Obj. 2). There he will stay until the end times when he will return to earth as one of the "two witnesses" mentioned in Rev 11:3 who will help in the battle against the Antichrist.​

 

• The prophet Elijah also did not die because he was taken up to heaven by a fiery chariot amid a whirlwind, per 2 Kgs 2:1–12. Like Enoch, Elijah was not taken to Heaven but only to the extraterrestrial paradise, where Enoch was also waiting. Elijah could not enter the Heaven of the saints because he also had not died yet. They are still both alive, probably sustained by the tree of life in their paradise, and will return to earth at the end times as the two witnesses mentioned in the Book of Revelation. During the reign of the Antichrist, Elijah will evangelize the Jews "to reconcile the heart of the father to the son and to restore the tribes of Jacob" (Ecclus 48:10), while Enoch will work with the Gentiles "that he may give repentance to the nations" (Ecclus 44:16). They will both be slain in the war with the Antichrist (Rev 11:7), but will rise from the dead (Rev 11:11) at the Second Coming of Christ to join the saints in God's Heavenly Kingdom. (Note: In Matt 17:10–13, Christ said that Elijah already came, but he was referring to St. John the Baptist, not to Elijah, who will still come in the end times.)