Did Mary Break the Rules of Heaven?

If there’s one thing Catholics and Protestants can agree on, it’s that whatever we believe can’t contradict Scripture. But some Protestants think the Catholic belief in Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven contradicts John 3:13.

There, Jesus says, “No one has ascended up to heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” If “no man” has ascended into heaven, so the argument goes, wouldn’t that include the Blessed Virgin Mary?

The answer is no; and the reason depends on how we interpret “ascend into heaven.” There are three possible meanings, as far as I can tell.

• One meaning is simply entrance into heaven.
• Another is the unique way in which Christ entered into heaven—by his own power.
• Still another is Jesus’ possession of the Beatific Vision.

My claim is that none of these meanings excludes Mary’s bodily assumption.

Let’s take the entrance meaning first.

We know Christ can’t be excluding absolutely everyone else from entering heaven, since that would go against other things he’s revealed to us (cf. Rev. 5:8, 6:9, 7:4-10). Therefore, he must be referring to the timing of people entering heaven compared to himself.

Now, remember, Jesus is saying this long before Mary’s bodily assumption. So, at the time this statement was uttered, it was true that no one had “ascended” into heaven in the sense of entering heaven, including Mary, because her earthly life hadn’t come to an end yet and she hadn’t been bodily assumed.

So, on the view that “ascend” means entrance into heaven, Mary’s bodily assumption doesn’t conflict with John 3:13.

Well, what about the other meaning for “ascend”—namely, the unique way in which Christ enters heaven? Wouldn’t Mary’s bodily assumption rob Jesus of that privilege?

It would if we believed Mary went into heaven in the same way as Christ. But that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches. We don’t believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. Rather, she was assumed, which is essentially different.

The difference is that Jesus ascended into heaven by his own power. He was the active cause of his bodily entrance into heaven. Mary, on the other hand, was entirely passive, being brought bodily to heaven by God, just as all Christians will be bodily assumed into heaven by God at the end of time.

Given this difference between ascension and assumption, we can conclude that the Church’s teaching on Mary’s bodily assumption doesn’t conflict with the second possible meaning of John 3:13.

There’s one more possible meaning for “ascend”—namely, the beatific vision. One might interpret “ascend” in this way because Jesus’ statement seems to imply that he already “ascended” into heaven, for he says, “No one has ascended up to heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” How can Jesus have already “ascended” into heaven before his ascension in Acts 1?

The answer is the beatific vision. It is part of Church teaching that Jesus had the beatific vision while here on earth. So, he was “in heaven,” or “ascended into heaven,” even before visibly ascending into heaven with his resurrected body.

Now, on this reading, Jesus’ statement is not falsified by the belief that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. When Jesus said this statement, which was long before Mary would enter “heaven,” it was true that no one had the beatific vision. This statement was even true given that no righteous soul from the Old Testament had yet entered the beatific vision.

So, no matter how we read the phrase “ascend into heaven,” Mary’s bodily assumption doesn’t conflict with John 3:13. Thus, John 3:13 fails to disprove Mary’s bodily assumption.