Assumption of Mary

from http://www.hsccatl.com/WhyDoThat.aspx

Why did Jesus "ascend" into heaven and why was Mary "assumed"? What is the big significance and difference between the two ways of getting to heaven?
Jesus was God, so he ascended into heaven. In other words, He went there by His own power. Mary was not God, so she was taken up into heaven by Jesus - she was "assumed.

from comment here 160  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/08/solemnity-of-the-assumption-of-the-virgin-mary-into-heaven/#comment-36437

Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos,
Who is constant in prayer
and our firm hope in her intercessions.
For being the Mother of Life,
She was translated to life
by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb.

St. Padre Pio reportedly said more than once, “After my death I will do more. My real mission will begin after my death.” If this is true for the saints, it is even more so for Our Lady, in whom dwelt the fullness of deity. If, as St. Hilary of Poitiers said, “God the Word became flesh, that through His Incarnation our flesh might attain to union with God the Word,” (On the Trinity, I.11) this mystery is most manifest at the Incarnation: the nexus of the union of God and man in the womb of the blessed Virgin, from whom He took humanity, and to whom He gave the fullness of participation in the divine nature, that is, the fullness of grace. The Incarnation is the proximate beginning of the reversal of the sin of Eden. If, as St. Athanasius said, “He was made man that we might be made God,” (On the Incarnation, 54.3), and “we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh,” (Discourse III Against the Arians, 34), what greater participation in His divine nature was given to her from whom He took His flesh, by Him who cannot be outgiven? No less than was given to the angels who never sinned, was she given who gave him flesh and nourishment, breasts to suckle, and clean for soiled diapers. Hence her immaculate conception is part of His gift to her, and of course He acts first, for He is no Pelagian.

With His gift to the Second Eve comes the undoing of the loss of immortality incurred by the first Eve who fell to temptation and led the first Adam into sin. God did not leave the female sex without a heroine unstained by sin, but through a woman untied the knot of sin by making her a helper to the Second Adam in His work of redemption, and so a second Eve and co-redemptrix. Because death came to Adam and Eve only as a result of sin, so the Second Adam and the second Eve were immortal. Jesus was immortal not because He was God, but because, like pre-Fall Adam, He was without sin. And so likewise with Our Lady. Yet this immortality did not mean that they could not possibly die; they could choose to allow themselves to suffer death. Death had no claim on them, as it has on us who ultimately have no choice whether to die. As St. Andrew of Crete (d. AD 740) wrote,

Death does not come to her in the same way that it comes to us. Instead, it comes in a superior way, and for a reason higher than the reason that obliges us to surrender totally to death.” (Homily 1 on the Dormition)

So why then did Mary die, when she could have chosen to remain until Christ returned? The union of Mary and Christ was not merely an intersection in time, wherein natures were exchanged, and paths subsequently diverged. This is a union of divine love, in which Jesus gave Himself to Mary by taking her into His human heart and into the mystery of His divine blessedness, and in this holy and divine love she gave herself entirely to Him for His sake. From love she gave of her nature to Him, and from love He gave of both His natures to her. The union of the second Eve and the second Adam is an image of the union of Christ and the Church, not in every respect, but in that in our incorporation into His Mystical Body, we give to Him our humanity, and He gives to us in love the eternal Life which is a participation in His Trinitarian communion, and His human family, the Church, made one in that very communion. We are thereby brought into and within God’s perfect Love for Himself, which is God Himself. A greater participation in His divinity does not mean that something removed from Him is then given to us, but a greater union with Him is effected. Union with Christ in love includes sharing in His sufferings, even sharing in His death. In this present life, the greater the union, the greater the suffering. By this union, the sword that pierced Mary’s heart was the sword that pierced His. In love she followed Him even in death, still breathing “be it done unto me according to Thy word.”

But there is another reason too, for had Christ willed it, she would have remained with us. Through baptism we are incorporated into the Church, the family of Jesus. So His Mother becomes our Mother, as He showed us on the cross in giving John to Mary, and giving Mary to John. She did not cease to be the second Eve at Christ’s resurrection, or even at her death. As our Mother she assented not only to her Son’s death, but to her death also, for our sakes, because by her Assumption she gives us hope. The Feast of the Assumption is always at the same time a concrete affirmation of the article of faith in the Creed: Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam ventúri sæculi. (“I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”) In Mary’s Assumption Christ demonstrates to us that resurrection from the dead, and eternal life are not only for the God-man, but also for us mere mortals. Her Assumption testifies to the fidelity of Christ, who would not leave the sinless second Eve to suffer the same decay endured by the sinful first Eve. (See Cardinal Newman on the Assumption.)

Moreover, as St. Pio said of his greater efficacy after death, Mary knew that in the Beatific Vision she could be far more effective as a Mother for the Church through her prayers. Though on earth as the second Eve she had been a co-redemptrix with Christ as His helper in His mission, she knew that upon obtaining the Beatific Vision after her death, she would be able to do all the more in fulfilling her mission as spiritual Mother to the Church. As Pope Benedict XVI said,

[P]recisely because Mary is with God and in God, she is very close to each one of us. While she lived on this earth she could only be close to a very few people. Being in God, who is actually ‘within’ all of us, Mary shares in this closeness of God.

So she over whom death had no hold consented to death for our sake, for His sake, to be our spiritual Mother.

Prof. Feingold on Mary’s Spiritual Maternity

Q&A

Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 2012

also here from comment 165 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/#comment-123852

. Where in the teachings and propositions that the Apostles give us do we find such things as the bodily Assumption of Mary.

Pius XII gives us the key to the definition in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus

“We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been presented by the Holy Fathers as the New Eve, who, although subject to the New Adam, was most closely associated with Him in that struggle against the infernal enemy which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, was to result in that most complete victory over sin and death, which are always correlated in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Wherefore, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory, so also that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son had to be closed by the ‘glorification’ of her virginal body” (AAS 42. 768)

In other words, the definition was a development of the Tradition of Mary as the new Eve. I am sure that you will agree that, given Roman Catholic presuppositions on the authority of the magesterium, this is well within the Churches right. There were other considerations and arguments presented in the bull as well. For more information Robert, I would point you to the writings of Fr. William Most who summarized Pius XII arguments quite well. The link is below

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya5.htm

lecture by Lawrence Feingold on the patristic understanding of Mary as the new Eve. You can listen to it at the link below.

http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2009/11/early-church-fathers-on-mary-as-new-eve.html

from comment 176 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/

notes in acomment

 evangelizationsation.com:

When God chose to reveal his plan of salvation he did not even speak in words; he sent his Son, Jesus Christ. He revealed a person. Christ is the messenger and the message. Revelation is not only what Christ taught by words, but what he taught be his actions, by his very presence among us. Often the Apostles would learn by being with Christ without forming clear concepts and judgments. They were open to the mystery of Christ, and would learn only gradually and would see him in different ways. For St. Paul, he was the Redeemer, for St. John, the Word, the truth and the light. It is the totality of all the impressions Christ made that forms the deposit of faith. In this would be included his mother Mary. The Apostles witnessed the unique relationship of Jesus and Mary and her mediation at Cana, her faith, her fidelity to Christ as she stood at the foot of the Cross, and her association with them as they prayed waiting for the Holy Spirit after his resurrection and ascension. They were in some way aware of her place in his life and mission. The mystery of Mary is contained in the mystery of Christ.

With the death of the last Apostle, the deposit of faith came to a close. This deposit is rich but no detailed inventory of all the truths revealed and referred to was ever made by the Apostles. Some truths more evident than others were quickly formulated and proclaimed in the Church, but even more would be formulated and proclaimed in the future because of the richness of the mystery of Christ. As time goes by, the understanding of Christ and his mission will become even more perfect in the Church.

So the parameter of the Tradition is the inexhaustible richness of the encounter of the apostles with the Second Person of the Trinity. The parameter is Christ Himself. And the understanding with the encounter with a person cannot be written in a list, because a person is an infinite being. This understanding in the encounter with Christ has been passed down through out the ages in the family.