Assumption of Mary--what about Enoch and Elijah?

[Sardath]

A document in the Catholic Answers library about the Assumption states: “The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her.”

My bishop says this is not true; he claims that neither Enoch nor Elijah were assumed body and soul into heaven, and in fact that the only humans who have ever received this unique privilege were Jesus and Mary. He also claims that his position on this (like everything else he teaches) is “the teaching of the Church” which all faithful Catholics in the diocese are obligated to accept.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it looks to me like either Catholic Answers is contradicting the teaching of the Church or else my bishop doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it looks to me like either Catholic Answers is contradicting the teaching of the Church or else my bishop doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The Catholic Church has never dogmatically defined the interpretation of these passages, so there is no universal “teaching of the Church” involved, one way or another. The plain reading of these passages seems to support the CA position, and the CA position is not opposed to any defined doctrine. But neither is it supported by defined doctrine.

For those in his diocese, your Bishop is even more empowered to interpret the Scriptures than CA, and those in his diocese are obliged to give at least the assent of faith as long as his teaching is not clearly opposed to conscience.

FWIW, I think your Bishop is right. It is sometimes apologetically advantageous to use these passages, but I do not think there is any sort of meaningful equivalence between what happened to Enoch/Elijah and what happened to Mary. I believe that what happened to Mary (whatever that was) has never happened to another human being, and it will never happen again. I think it dilutes and cheapens the Assumption to equate Enoch/Elijah with this event.

 

[fermat]

Just for clarification, the passage is from 2 Kings 2:11,
As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

A straight reading would suggest that he was assumed body and soul into heaven; however, lots of things in the OT can be misunderstood with a ‘straight reading’. I would side more with a bishop, but I certainly would not consider the matter closed. The nice thing about the OT (besides being the word of God) is that it is a deep, deep pool. Dive in.

 

[Sardath]

David, thank you for your reply, but I must admit I find it deeply disturbing.

The “biblical” objection to the Assumption is often raised by Protestants who are thinking about converting to the Catholic Church. I have used the answer provided by Catholic Answers to respond to that objection, and found it effective; in fact some of the people who raised that objection and received that answer from me did eventually enter the Church. But now my bishop comes along and declares that answer to be wrong, and claims to bind me as a matter of faith to accept his answer, which directly contradicts the one I gave out in good faith to others. Should I now go back and tell all those people that I gave them bad information and perhaps they should reconsider? Should I also tell people not to trust what Catholic Answers says, because my bishop says their answers are wrong? Or does it not really matter what nonsense we throw at people as long as it convinces them to enter the One True Church, and then once they’re safely inside we can straighten them out with the real story? (In the commercial world this tactic is known as “bait and switch.”)

It seems to me you are suggesting that the truth in such matters depends on what diocese you live in–that Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven in some dioceses but not in others–or, worse, that objective truth has nothing to do with it, and that we should earnestly believe whatever our current bishop offers as “the teaching of the Church” and then just as earnestly believe the opposite when the next bishop comes along with some different teaching. This comes perilously close to the old anti-Catholic accusation that in the final analysis, Catholicism boils down to a single rule: “Shut up and do as you are told.” That may have been true in the past, and apparently my bishop thinks it ought to be true today, but one of the reasons I became Catholic was that I thought the Church as a whole had finally moved beyond this. Perhaps I was wrong.

 

[kateriann]

Sardath,

I agree with you, that often people seem to want to believe what their bishop or priest says even if it contradicts what another says. These are men of the cloth, entitled to their own interpretation of the Word. And there are many interpretations possible. But we are also called to study the Word, and are allowed our own interpretations. The Church does not seem to discount the experiences of Enoch and Elijah, though Mary’s experience is elevated. The fact that all three, and possibly others, were taken wholly to Heaven seems to validate the Assumption, as you stated.

Here’s an analogy that might help: Pretend you work for a large company, and you are the best at your job. Everyone knows you are the best. In previous years, awards for VIP have been given for the person who has done the most outstanding work. This year, you will get that award. At the acceptance ceremony, your boss talks about how you are the best he has ever seen. But your award is the same as the one given in previous years. Like Mary, you are treated, at the moment, no differently from those other guys who went before you. You know, however, that you have the admiration of your boss, and more rewards may be coming.

Hope I didn’t confuse the issue.

 

[Sardath]

These are men of the cloth, entitled to their own interpretation of the Word. And there are many interpretations possible. But we are also called to study the Word, and are allowed our own interpretations.

This is precisely where my bishop would disagree with you. According to him, whatever comes out of his mouth is neither more nor less than “the teaching of the Church” and all are bound to agree with him because he is the only teacher of the faith in his diocese; there are no other legitimate teachers per se–only catechists and diocesan apparachiks, whose job is to be “an echo chamber for the bishop”–and no other interpretations are permitted. Not only that, but any decision he makes regarding administration of the diocese is by definition the best decision that could be made, and all are bound to agree with and support that decision because (he says) he has received a “special gift” from the Holy Spirit which guarantees that any decision he makes is always better than the decision anyone else might have made.

I wish I could say that I’m making all this up, but it comes straight out of his own public pronouncements. And unfortunately there are many Catholics, both in my own diocese and elsewhere, who think he’s just wonderful and agree with him completely about every bit of it. One of his seminarians even told me that the bishop is not only a successor of the apostles, but an apostle himself, and that when the bishop teaches on faith and morals he teaches infallibly. Just when you think things can’t get any worse …

 

[Evan]

My bishop says this is not true; he claims that neither Enoch nor Elijah were assumed body and soul into heaven, and in fact that the only humans who have ever received this unique privilege were Jesus and Mary.

I would say your bishop is in error. Jesus was never assumed body and soul into heaven. Jesus ascended into heaven of his own power. If your quote is accurate you should correct his slip. I believe he was speaking without proper forethought and terminology.

 

[rwoehmke]

That raises another question. Elijah and Moses in glorified form appeared with Jesus in the Transfiguration. Where did they appear from? I accept that my Bishop has authority to teach, but unless he is teaching defined doctrine or dogma of the Church, he is not necessarily infallible. Individual Bishops never are. Out of respect for his office I would say that to openly contradict what he is teaching is wrong, but it would seem to me in this case I could believe what I believe as long as I don’t try to teach in opposition to his stand.

 

[PeterK]

Sardath,
I would echo what rwoehmke said. You Bishop is privy to a lot of things, attacks on the Church in particular, that you and I can only guess at. He could have many reasons for taking the stance he has taken. They need our prayers and support.

One critical difference between Mary and the OT figures is Mary’s Assumption occurs post-resurrection. Christ has now opened wide the doors to heaven. Enoch and Elijah were ‘taken’ by God - possibly body and soul. I don’t know if the ancient author is exhibiting pious hyperbole or historical objective fact, but Enoch and Elijah did not achieve heaven. That reward was afforded to none of the exiled children of Adam until Christ redeemed mankind. Also, if I understand correctly - and possibly I don’t - Mary, the Blessed Mother has been raised. She already lives the reward of the final resurrection that all await. She will not rise again. So, for me, a good angle on describing the Blessed Mother’s Assumption is that she has already experienced the final resurrection merited by her subjection to God’s will to use her to bring his son into the world. You could say, because she did not make God wait to enter earth, God did not make her wait to enter heaven.

So on two points I would side with the Bishop.

Enoch and Elijah did not attain heaven prior to Christ’s redeeming sacrifice. This chronological obstacle was not a problem for Mary.

Enoch and Elijah, while they may not have left behind a body, have not experienced the resurrection due again to the fact that Christ had not made that possible at the time of their death. Again, this obstacle is not a problem for Mary.

Mary, immaculately conceived and ever-pure, sinless by virtue of her selection to be Christ’s mother, did not need to forego a particular judgement at death and will forego the general judgement at the resurrection of the dead. It is part of her unique situation to have been preserved from all sin.

Also, Mary’s Assumption can be seen in the light of the incarnation. She glorified God by giving God a human body, so God glorified her by giving back to her her resurrected self. She born Him temporal. He born her eternal. You cannot out-give God.

All of this is very different from Enoch - who only has a few sentences referring to him, and Elijah. Your Bishop may have some of this in mind.

Hope this helped.

Peterk

 

[Nita]

A document in the Catholic Answers library about the Assumption states: “The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her.”

My bishop says this is not true; he claims that neither Enoch nor Elijah were assumed body and soul into heaven, and in fact that the only humans who have ever received this unique privilege were Jesus and Mary. He also claims that his position on this (like everything else he teaches) is “the teaching of the Church” which all faithful Catholics in the diocese are obligated to accept.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it looks to me like either Catholic Answers is contradicting the teaching of the Church or else my bishop doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Perhaps you could ask him for a reference to the Church document which officially teaches that neither Enoch nor Elijah were assumed into heaven.

It is one thing to (correctly) state that it is not official Church teaching that Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven; it is a totally different matter to state (incorrectly, I think) that the Church officially teaches we are not to believe they were assumed into heaven.

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 44:16 Henoch pleased God, and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations.

The footnote for this verse in the Haydock Bible reads:
Ver. 16. Into. Greek, “a model of penance to past or future generations.” (Haydock) — The Latin fathers suppose that Henoch was translated to heaven, or to the earthly paradise. It is the tradition both of Jews and Christians that he is still alive, and will come to oppose Antichrist, (Apocalypse xi. 3., Genesis v. 22., and Hebrews xi. 5.; Calmet) when he will preach penance, (Worthington) chiefly to the Gentiles, while Elias will address himself to the Jews. (Haydock)

And the footnote on 2 Kings 2:11 reads:
…
— Heaven; (see ver. 1.) where he lives free from all disturbance. (Tirinus) — It is a constant, that he will come again before the last judgment; as his representative, John the Baptist, announced the first appearance of our Redeemer. (St. Gregory, hom. 7. in Ev.) Of this the Jews were convinced. (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho) See Malachias iv. 5.

I will add tho, that I do not see an imprimatur in my copy of the Haydock.
But regardless, it seems to me, it is still a topic open to personal opinion/interpretation

 

[NHInsider]

Perhaps you could ask him for a reference to the Church document which officially teaches that neither Enoch nor Elijah were assumed into heaven.

I’m going to guess that the OP has not actually had a conversation with his bishop but is referring to public statements of that worthy. Which, depending on the source, raises the possibility that the bishop actually said something rather different, which was reported in a more extreme/sensational way. But of course that is pure speculation on my part.

It is one thing to (correctly) state that it is not official Church teaching that Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven; it is a totally different matter to state (incorrectly, I think) that the Church officially teaches we are not to believe they were assumed into heaven.

This is correct and in simple fact the Church does not teach that individual bishops are given the gift of infallibility. It does give them the authority to teach their flock, but not to speak definitively where the Church universal has not spoken (otherwise it would be possible, as the OP has suggested, that something could be “true” in one diocese and “not true” in another). The successors to the Apostles may teach infallibly as a body, or the Bishop of Rome may teach infallibly as their head.

The local ordinary could conceivably direct that his parishoners not discuss a doctrinal dispute, I suppose (as the late Holy Father directed us to stop arguing about woman’s ordination) but that still falls short of defining doctrine.

 

[PeterK]

It is one thing to (correctly) state that it is not official Church teaching that Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven; it is a totally different matter to state (incorrectly, I think) that the Church officially teaches we are not to believe they were assumed into heaven.

No human was in heaven prior to Christ’s Ascension. I guess that’s where I would take the line of questioning. Maybe where this Bishop is there are a lot of crazy ideas floating around (it happens, just peruse this forum!), he may have some great reasons for stressing this point at this particular time and place.

Because the conversation necessarily depends heavily on the sparse biblical references to Enoch and Elijah’s death or lack there of - three verses total I think - I don’t believe much can be achieved with certainty. Does ‘and God took him, and he walked with God’ have no other meaning possible other than an assumption - body and soul? This is old, old ancient texts we’re dealing with. We can be absolutely certain?

The point is, I don’t think this really merits taking a stand opposite the Bishop. And trust me, the Bishop already knows there are people that do not agree with him on more subjects than this one. And some of those opponents wear a roman collar.

Given what I’ve mused on so far I would have to say I do not agree with the Catholic Answers tract in the original post; “… was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her.”

I disagree. Heaven was not open for “Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others” to be assumed into. The ‘grand opening’ occurred at/after the Ascension. “I go to prepare a place for you,…” prior to Jesus doing this a place had not been prepared.

I believe the early Church said OT figures went to the Limbo of the Fathers, regardless the point is they didn’t go - immediately - to heaven.

Mary’s Assumption makes sense and is defendable even in the absence of scriptural anecdotal precedent.

PeterK

 

[kateriann]

Sardath,

This reminds me of a story our priest told - I don’t think he would mind my recounting it. He said that a woman who was converting to Catholicism told him that her preacher (of which Protestant church I do not know) had said he was one of the 10,000 (the fortunate blessed). Our priest answered, “Really?” And the woman assured him that, oh yes, this man believed he had the ear of God himself. When the priest said, “And did he say there were other members of the congregation who were also in that number?” she answered, 'No, just him."

Hmmm. I would be wary of a man of the cloth, even a bishop, who seems to elevate his own opinion as ipso facto also that of the Church herself. The tales of saints emphasize humbleness, and isn’t that what we are all supposed to emulate? It seems there are issues other than the Enoch/Elijah example. If it is possible, you might wish to seek another congregation. If that is not possible, it may help to ask the bishop to provide some backing for what he says. You can ask in a way that flatters him, such as, “I never realized that/thought about that perspective. Can you give me some reading references so I can learn more about it?”

Good luck, and prayers!

 

[Sardath]

I believe the early Church said OT figures went to the Limbo of the Fathers, regardless the point is they didn’t go - immediately - to heaven.

That may have been the norm, but this is precisely the point of the exceptional statements made about Enoch and Elijah–that unlike the usual run of mankind, who descended into Sheol to await further developments, Enoch and Elijah (and, depending on whether you accept Jewish tradition on this point, perhaps Moses as well) were given the special privilege of being caught up into heaven ahead of everyone else.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 5) writes: “For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. Elijah, too, was caught up … thus exhibiting in prophecy the assumption of those who are spiritual … Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place, for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit … and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation, as a prelude to immortality.”

So according to Irenaeus, who is citing “the disciples of the apostles” (in other words, Apostolic Tradition), Enoch and Elijah were translated body and soul into “paradise.” So what exactly is paradise? According to the ex cathedra definition “Benedictus Deus” of Pope Benedict XII, “the souls of all the saints … have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels.”

Unless Irenaeus and Benedict XII can be shown to be using the term “paradise” to mean different things, this would seem to be conclusive.

 

[Sardath]

Because the conversation necessarily depends heavily on the sparse biblical references to Enoch and Elijah’s death or lack there of - three verses total I think - I don’t believe much can be achieved with certainty. Does ‘and God took him, and he walked with God’ have no other meaning possible other than an assumption - body and soul? This is old, old ancient texts we’re dealing with. We can be absolutely certain?

Let scripture interpret scripture:

“Few on earth have been made the equal of Enoch, for he was taken up bodily.” (Sirach 49:14)

“By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was found no more because God had taken him.” (Hebrews 11:5)

So, yes, unless scripture is simply wrong on this point, we can be absolutely certain that Enoch was “taken up bodily” and that as a result he did not “see death.” If this is not “an assumption body and soul,” what is it?

 

[Sardath]

Heaven was not open for “Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others” to be assumed into. The ‘grand opening’ occurred at/after the Ascension. “I go to prepare a place for you,…” prior to Jesus doing this a place had not been prepared.

“The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matthew 27:52-53)

These saints raised after Christ’s resurrection (but long before any reasonable time frame for the assumption of Mary) are what the Catholic Answers tract meant by “perhaps others.” And if you look at the Greek, it’s pretty clear the inspired author was deliberately bracketing the raising of these saints and the raising of Christ as events of the same kind, since they are both described with the same Greek verb. These weren’t holy zombies; they were–along with Christ himself–the first fruits of the resurrection. And if they were not assumed “body and soul” into heaven shortly thereafter, where in the world did they all go?

So not only do we have a problem with Enoch and Elijah, we have a problem with a whole bunch of dead saints who, according to the text of scripture, were resurrected on Easter morning along with Jesus–and according to Pope Benedict XII, these resurrected saints must now be in heaven, enjoying the beatific vision along with everyone else who made it–except that unlike most, they have already been resurrected and so must be there body and soul as well.

 

[Hesychios]

A document in the Catholic Answers library about the Assumption states: “The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her.”

My bishop says this is not true; he claims that neither Enoch nor Elijah were assumed body and soul into heaven, and in fact that the only humans who have ever received this unique privilege were Jesus and Mary. He also claims that his position on this (like everything else he teaches) is “the teaching of the Church” which all faithful Catholics in the diocese are obligated to accept.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it looks to me like either Catholic Answers is contradicting the teaching of the Church or else my bishop doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

There are a couple of ideas here that need to be unpacked.

First, it is scriptural that Enoch and Elijah were both assumed into heaven. That’s just a given, so no later theories should ‘reverse engineer’ that. Our beliefs, no matter how sophisticated our logic, must conform to the Biblical facts. God has His ways and His reasons, which are not always clear to us.

The second thing is that (as has already been mentioned) Jesus Our Lord rose to heaven bodily, He was not assumed. It is an entirely different phenomenon, He is God and God has this power to intrude into space and time.

The third thing is that the entire belief in the Assumption of Mary is based upon, and really rooted in the tradition that she died and was buried. This makes her assumption much different than the earlier ones. The facts of Saint Mary’s assumption into heaven are entirely dependent upon the early widely held understanding of her death and burial, following the death and burial of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Mary the Holy Theotokos is among the First Fruits of the Promise. That is the significance of it. The event is unique in time only, we are all expected (God Willing) to follow in this so it is not so much a unique exception as it is a precursor of the coming resurrection of the bodies of all of us. The assumption must always be understood in this context. In fact a reading of the entire document The Most Bountiful God (Munificentissimus Deus) of Pope Pius XII will show that he well understood this.

It is very fitting that the Mother of God be the first of many to die, be buried and be reborn to new life in heaven with God.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/texts/dormin1.jpg

 

[DavidFilmer]

It seems to me you are suggesting that the truth in such matters depends on what diocese you live in

I’m saying we should listen to and attempt to reconcile ourselves with the teaching Office of the Church.

Your bishop is part of that teaching Office. Catholic Answers is not (though they help greatly).

When our Bishop speaks, we should listen. It does not matter if a Bishop in another diocese is silent, or even teaches something different. That other Bishop is not our pastor.

In citing Elijah/Enoch in this manner, Catholic Answers is engaging in private interpretation of Scripture. There’s nothing wrong with doing so as long as their interpretation is not contrary to established doctrine (which it is not). But it’s just that - a personal interpretation (even if it comes from CA).

If the full Magesterium ever defines this matter then all Bishops should align themselves with it. In the meantime, your Bishop is discharging his duty to instruct and lead the people entrusted to his pastoral care. And, FWIW, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Bishop who personally agreed with the CA interpretation.

I know of no Catholic theologian who employs the Elijah/Enoch parallel in support of the doctrine of the Assumption. Although he cites MUCH corroborating evidence, Pope Pius XII did not mention Elijah or Enoch when he defined the doctrine of the Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus. He draws heavily upon Scripture (18 of the 48 footnotes are Scripture citations - 38%), yet the Holy Father was silent on this aspect. Why is that?

Nor does Ludwig Ott mention Elijah or Enoch in the four pages he devoted to the Assumption in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (pages 208-211 of the Tan Books edition). Why is that?

Pope John Paul II found Scriptural support for the doctrine of the Assumption in a sermon he preached at Lourdes. But he found it in John 14:3, and did not mention Elijah or Enoch. Why is that?

Popes and theologians have had ample reason and opportunity to cite Elijah and Enoch in support of the Assumption, but none have. Why is that? In a way, this silence could be construed as a teaching of the Church (either that, or it’s a gross oversight).

 

[Sardath]

I’m saying we should listen to and attempt to reconcile ourselves with the teaching Office of the Church. … When our Bishop speaks, we should listen. It does not matter if a Bishop in another diocese is silent, or even teaches something different. That other Bishop is not our pastor.

Again: It seems to me you are suggesting that the truth depends on what diocese you live in–or, worse, that objective truth has nothing to do with it at all. Today Bishop X is my pastor because I happen to live in his diocese, so I must “listen” to him and “reconcile” myself with his teaching; but tomorrow, if I move across the river to a different diocese, Bishop Y is my pastor and so I must “listen” to him and “reconcile” myself with his teaching, which may require me to believe the exact opposite of what Bishop X required me to believe the day before. And if I move back across the river to the jurisdiction of Bishop X again, I must now reverse myself again and reconcile myself to the teaching of Bishop X, which is the exact opposite of what Bishop Y required me to believe.

This may have made some sort of practical sense in a time when most people were illiterate peasants who never traveled more than a few miles from the place they were born, but in the modern world it makes no sense at all–at least not to anyone who is actually interested in the truth.

I find it interesting that you sign your postings with “2 + 2 = 5”. There’s a long section in Orwell’s 1984 built around that theme–the idea being that if someone with authority “explains” things to you in just the right way, you can eventually learn how to sincerely believe things that any rational person knows can’t possibly be true. Is that what we’re really about here?

 

[Sardath]

I know of no Catholic theologian who employs the Elijah/Enoch parallel in support of the doctrine of the Assumption. … Nor does Ludwig Ott mention Elijah or Enoch in the four pages he devoted to the Assumption in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (pages 208-211 of the Tan Books edition).

On the other hand, Ott does cite in this context the passage in Matthew 27 that I have already referred to, and adds: “According to the more probable explanation, which was already expounded by the Fathers, the awakening of the saints was a final resurrection and transfiguration” which suggests that “the justified of the Old Covenant were called to the perfection of salvation immediately after the conclusion of the redemptive work of Christ”. If that is the case, then my bishop’s claim that Jesus and Mary are the only humans who currently occupy heaven “body and soul” would seem to be contrary to historic Catholic teaching even without reference to Enoch and Elijah.