Assumption of Mary--what about Enoch and Elijah?

[Sardath]

I know of no Catholic theologian who employs the Elijah/Enoch parallel in support of the doctrine of the Assumption. … 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).

At least as far as I am concerned, the issue is not whether Catholic Answers should be using Enoch and Elijah to support the Assumption; the issue is whether my bishop is correct when he declares that the Catholic Answers position is wrong, that there is no one currently resident in heaven “body and soul” besides Jesus and Mary, and that this is “the teaching of the Church” which we are all bound to accept. Not only does the bishop’s position contradict long-standing patristic interpretation of scripture; it would also seem to contradict the modern teaching office of the universal Church:

“The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11).” (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 21 July 1999)

And if you will do a search on “enoch elijah assumption” at the Vatican web site, you will find a couple of documents posted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity which explicitly do link the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah to that of Mary.

 

[DavidFilmer]

On the other hand, Ott does cite in this context the passage in Matthew 27

This is true (bottom of page 208, top of 209 in the Tan edition).

…would seem to be contrary to historic Catholic teaching even without reference to Enoch and Elijah.

Dr. Ott is very careful in this section to strictly qualify his words with phrases such as “possibility … is not excluded,” “It’s probability,” “more probable explanation,” “possible and probable.” He does not claim that this is Catholic teaching (only that it is possible and probable). Dr. Ott knew that the Church has no universal teaching on this matter, and he was very deliberate and careful not to imply otherwise (a good example for us to follow).

Yet, any mention of Enoch/Elijah (which is, after all, the title of this thread) is, once again, conspicuous by its absence.

 

[DavidFilmer]

“The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11).” (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 21 July 1999)

JP2 was only saying that those who lived before Christ could yet be saved, and used Enoch and Elijah as obvious examples. Nobody doubts that Enoch and Elijah are saved, but that doesn’t mean they underwent an assumption that was equivalent to that of Mary in any meaningful way.

And if you will do a search on “enoch elijah assumption” at the Vatican web site, you will find a couple of documents posted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity which explicitly do link the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah to that of Mary.

You will find two links that point to the same document. Did you read it?

It does, indeed, mention Enoch and Elijah as “oriented to a destiny of glory” (along with the “good thief”). “Oriented to a destiny of glory” a long way from being bodily assumed as Mary was (and I’m pretty sure the “good thief” has never been thought to have been assumed). After citing these three examples of people known to be saved, it goes on to say, “For Mary, the disciple closest to Christ, it is most fitting that her union with God in life lead to her being gathered to God in death to share the new creation.” It does not mention Elijah, Enoch, or the “good thief” as being similarly gathered (only similarly saved, which nobody disputes).

 

[DavidFilmer]

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.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. Objective truth has absolutely nothing to do with the question you asked (because the Church has no universal doctrine in this regard, so there IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH here). So, lacking any universal definition, we must align ourselves with the next best thing - the Bishop who has been appointed as our pastor and teacher.

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.

Yes, exactly. As long as neither Bishop is requiring you to accepting something that is contrary to morality, you are obliged to accept (with at least the assent of faith) the teaching of whatever Bishop has been duly appointed as your pastor (even if you change pastoral jurisdictions).

It is unlikely (though possible) that you may be expected to assent (with at least the assent of faith) to contrary teachings (and, in the topic of this thread, it would be practically impossible, as few (if any) Bishops would agree with the CA position you seem to defend). But, even so, you (and CA) are not the teacher, but the student.

This is not “doublethink” of 1984. You are not expected to assent to contrary teachings at once. You are only expected to accept (with at least the assent of faith) the teaching of the Bishop who is presently entrusted with the teaching ministry of… you. What your Bishop says is actually the “teaching of the Church” as far as you are concerned. Not what CA says. Not what Ott says. Only the universal Magesterium may overrule what your Bishop says, as far as you are concerned.

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 have traveled and moved around quite a bit, and even when I have not traveled, I have seen changes in who my Bishop was, yet this has never been an issue for me. You seem to assume that different Bishops routinely teach incompatibly. Can you actually justify this assumption?

I find it interesting that you sign your postings with “2 + 2 = 5”.

It’s a joke from a t-shirt, but I like it as a sig because it suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which is true of the Catholic Church (which is holy, though comprised of sinners).

 

[Sardath]

JP2 was only saying that those who lived before Christ could yet be saved, and used Enoch and Elijah as obvious examples. Nobody doubts that Enoch and Elijah are saved, but that doesn’t mean they underwent an assumption that was equivalent to that of Mary in any meaningful way.

Read the quote again: ‘The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11)." (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 21 July 1999)’

JP2 was not just saying that Enoch and Elijah were saved; he said they are examples of believers who ascended to heaven, and in particular to the same heaven which is “the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God.” We know from scripture that at least in the case of Enoch he did so “bodily” and that he did not “see death”. All you have to do is connect the dots.

You will find two links that point to the same document. Did you read it?

They are not the same document, which you should know if you read them. And the one you ignored says: ‘God’s faithful servant Elijah is taken up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11), and of Enoch it is written, “he was attested as having pleased God” as a man of faith, and was therefore “taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God had taken him” (Hebrews 11:5, cf. Genesis 5:24). Within such a pattern of anticipated eschatology, Mary can also be seen as the faithful disciple fully present with God in Christ. In this way, she is a sign of hope for all humanity. The pattern of hope and grace already foreshadowed in Mary will be fulfilled in the new creation in Christ when all the redeemed will participate in the full glory of the Lord (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18).’

And then it goes on to make the main point to which all this is preparation: ‘Thus, given the understanding we have reached concerning the place of Mary in the economy of hope and grace, we can affirm together the teaching that God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into his glory as consonant with Scripture and that it can, indeed, only be understood in the light of Scripture.’

So the document not only says that the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah are directly relevant to our understanding of the assumption of Mary, but implies that her assumption “can only be understood” in light of them.

 

[Sardath]

Objective truth has absolutely nothing to do with the question you asked (because the Church has no universal doctrine in this regard, so there IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH here).

So “objective truth” is simply whatever the Church says it is, and without the Church’s imprimatur “there is no objective truth” to be had. If the Church says (as it once did) that the sun revolves around the earth, then the sun revolves around the earth; and if it later changes its mind (as it later did) and says the earth revolves around the sun, then the earth now revolves around the sun. And if the Church says it simply doesn’t know, then neither can we, and we must accept our local bishop’s opinion on the subject as “the teaching of the Church” at least for us, if not for everyone else. Thank you for clarifying that.

So, lacking any universal definition, we must align ourselves with the next best thing - the Bishop who has been appointed as our pastor and teacher. … As long as neither Bishop is requiring you to accepting something that is contrary to morality …

Canon Law declares that “all are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church” and that “when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.” For the bishop to command me to stop seeking the objective truth about such matters and to accept his personal theological opinion instead is tantamount to a demand that I disobey the divine law. Is that not “contrary to morality”? Or is “divine law” really just “divine guidelines” which our local bishop can set aside at will?

… you are obliged to accept (with at least the assent of faith) the teaching of whatever Bishop has been duly appointed as your pastor (even if you change pastoral jurisdictions). … What your Bishop says is actually the “teaching of the Church” as far as you are concerned.

So regardless of what the highest authority of the Church says about seeking and embracing the truth, the reality on the ground is that we are bound to believe whatever our local bishop tells us to believe, and being a faithful Catholic really does simply mean, “Shut up and do as you are told.” Thank you for clarifying that as well.

This is not “doublethink” of 1984. You are not expected to assent to contrary teachings at once. You are only expected to accept (with at least the assent of faith) the teaching of the Bishop who is presently entrusted with the teaching ministry of… you.

But this is precisely the system described by Orwell in 1984. One was not required to believe that Oceania was, and always had been, allied with Eurasia against Eastasia, and also the contrary at the same time; one was simply required to believe whichever variant the Party was promoting at the moment–just as, apparently, Catholics are required to believe whatever variant of theological opinion one’s local bishop is promoting at the moment, despite what anyone else may have to say on the matter (including other bishops past or present, or even one’s local bishop himself on some other occasion). Doublethink, as Orwell himself says, is fundamentally “a vast system of mental cheating” in which “two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed.” And the same thing is true of the kind of Catholicism you are championing.

I have traveled and moved around quite a bit, and even when I have not traveled, I have seen changes in who my Bishop was, yet this has never been an issue for me.

Of course not. If you are adept at practicing doublethink, two plus two can be three as easily as five, if that is what is required. If you are a “faithful Catholic”, Enoch and Elijah can as easily be assumed into heaven as not, if that is what your bishop tells you. “Shut up and do as you are told.” It’s all so clear to me now.

You seem to assume that different Bishops routinely teach incompatibly. Can you actually justify this assumption?

Good grief, are you serious? Traditionalist Catholics spent three decades after Vatican II complaining about all the crazy stuff liberal bishops were teaching. Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we are getting the same sort of thing on the other end of the spectrum. But perhaps one of the clearest examples is the response of American bishops to the Iraq war. Some bishops declared the war “just” and even said that it was the “duty” of young Americans to sign up and fight in it. But at least one American bishop invoked his full apostolic authority to declare the same war to be clearly “unjust” and to bind the faithful on pain of mortal sin not to participate in it or support it in any way. So was the Iraq war a just war in one diocese but unjust in another? Was it perfectly appropriate for Catholics from Diocese X to go to Iraq and kill people there, but a mortal sin for Catholics from Diocese Y to do the same? By your lights, that would seem to be the case. But from the standpoint of objective truth (and objective morality) that makes no sense at all.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Read the quote again

I don’t need to read it again. There are lots of Saints in heaven (it’s a doctrine of the Church). Every one of them “ascended” there. This language is, of course, imprecise (heaven is not really “up,” so we cannot really “ascend” there, but we lack the vocabulary to really describe it). But, unlike most Saints, Enoch and Elijah were OT persons who had witnesses, and their ascention was recorded in Scripture, so they are favorite examples of OT figures known to be in Heaven. But JP2 did not even approach a claim that what happened to Enoch and Elijah (whatever that was) was the same as the Assumption of Mary (whatever that was).

We know from scripture that at least in the case of Enoch he did so “bodily” and that he did not “see death”. All you have to do is connect the dots.

That’s your interpretation (and, I agree, as I said, it is the plain sense of the text). My interpretation is not so literal - I believe that something special happened to Enoch, but it was not the same thing that happened to Mary.

They are not the same document, which you should know if you read them.

Of course, you are correct. Quite stupid of me. That’s what I get for typing at 2:30 in the morning. I thought the datestamp in the URL was a document number and did not look more closely.

And the one you ignored says: [what Sardath has been saying]

I concede that you have found a Vatican document that links Elijah and Enoch to the Assumption the same manner as CA. So I will modify my claim that *almost *no recognized authority has ever used this parallel, with the known exception of one report published by a dicastery which I had never heard of until yesterday (had you ever heard of it before you did your search?)

So “objective truth” is simply whatever the Church says it is, and without the Church’s imprimatur “there is no objective truth” to be had.

I’m using the term “objective” to describe Church teachings which must be accepted as fact (ie, infallible decrees). Other teachings are “subjective.” For example, subject to the authority of your Bishop. BTW, I think you meant to say “nihil obstat” but neither term really works in this context (*nihil obstat *means only “free from (known) error” - it does not guarantee truth).

…and we must accept our local bishop’s opinion on the subject as “the teaching of the Church” at least for us, if not for everyone else. Thank you for clarifying that.

You’re welcome. Why is this so hard for you to accept? It has always been this way.

Canon Law declares that “all are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church” and that “when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.”

Yes, and I believe I have been careful to qualify my remarks that you are never required to accept anything contrary to morality (which includes your firm belief of the truth - it is immoral for us to reject what we firmly believe to be true) and that you are never required to give assent of the heart (only the assent of faith).

For the bishop to command me to stop seeking the objective truth about such matters and to accept his personal theological opinion instead is tantamount to a demand that I disobey the divine law.

Did your Bishop actually forbid you from your inquiries? This is something you have not mentioned before.

Let me ask you this: Do you feel yourself at liberty to completely ignore and disregard the teaching of your Bishop?

[discussion about 1984 and my t-shirt sig]

I think this branch is getting off-topic. I think there’s enough substance here without delving into science fiction and t-shirt jokes, so I’ll refrain here.

But at least one American bishop invoked his full apostolic authority to declare the same war to be clearly “unjust” and to bind the faithful on pain of mortal sin not to participate in it or support it in any way. So was the Iraq war a just war in one diocese but unjust in another? Was it perfectly appropriate for Catholics from Diocese X to go to Iraq and kill people there, but a mortal sin for Catholics from Diocese Y to do the same? By your lights, that would seem to be the case.

I had not heard of this Bishop, but it does not matter. What you say is basically correct.

Why is this so hard for you to accept? In some countries, it is legal to drink at 18, and in others it is against the law. That’s because a nation (state, city, county) has authority to make the rules. Do you complain if an 19-year old is arrested for underage drinking in Oregon simply because it would be perfectly legal in South Korea? Of course not. Most people accept the idea of legal jurisdictions which may or may not share the same rules of conduct. What is perfectly legal in one jurisdiction might even be a capital crime in another.

It is no different for Bishops. A Bishop is absolutely sovereign in his own Diocese - if you live in his Diocese then you are subject to his authority. Only the full Universal Magersterium (either Ordinary or Extraordinary) can supercede his teaching authority. Not even the Pope can supercede this authority, unless he invokes ex Cathedra. It has always been this way.

But, unlike legal jurisdictions, you have far more leeway in the Church. You are not compelled to accept any teaching that opposes morality (including your firm conviction of truth), and you are only required to give assent of faith to those teachings which do not oppose morality (meaning you are free to charitably dispute them, as long as you accept the possibility you could be mistaken).

 

[Sardath]

I concede that you have found a Vatican document that links Elijah and Enoch to the Assumption the same manner as CA. So I will modify my claim that almost no recognized authority has ever used this parallel, with the known exception of one report published by a dicastery which I had never heard of until yesterday (had you ever heard of it before you did your search?)

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is actually quite important and has a high profile compared to many other Vatican offices. They are prominently covered by Catholic news services and magazines; for example, a search for them on Zenit reports 487 hits. I have been following their work for years.

I’m using the term “objective” to describe Church teachings which must be accepted as fact (ie, infallible decrees). Other teachings are “subjective.” For example, subject to the authority of your Bishop.

I don’t think this is a correct characterization of the situation as the Church itself sees things. For one thing, according to canon law and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, there are a great many more teachings which must be “accepted as fact” than just those taught in “infallible decrees”. In fact, the bulk of the teachings which (we are told) must be believed “with divine and catholic faith” are contained in the huge amorphous body of traditional teachings propagated over the centuries by the “ordinary and universal magisterium” of the bishops dispersed throughout the world. Such teachings, being infallible despite their lack of formal promulgation through “infallible decrees”, are certainly not subject to the authority of the local bishop. Quite the contrary; under canon law any bishop who obstinately denies or even doubts such teaching is automatically excommunicated.

I believe I have been careful to qualify my remarks that you are never required to accept anything contrary to morality (which includes your firm belief of the truth - it is immoral for us to reject what we firmly believe to be true)

That may be true–but it is also true that the Church reserves the right to excommunicate you for taking such a stand.

and that you are never required to give assent of the heart (only the assent of faith).

This is not language I am familiar with. Could you explain what you mean by these expressions, and how they are to be distinguished?

Did your Bishop actually forbid you from your inquiries?

Effectively, yes. He has declared that (1) he never gives his own opinion on anything touching faith and morals, but only teaches what the Church teaches, (2) we are absolutely obligated to believe everything the Church teaches, without exception, which–taken together with (1) above–implies that we are also obligated to believe everything he teaches, without exception, and (3) anyone who does not do so is not really Catholic anymore and therefore no longer worthy to receive the sacraments until they repent. Further, he has declared that “anyone who is not with the bishop is not in the Church”, and as far as I can tell his definition of being “with the bishop” is believing everything the bishop teaches and accepting everything the bishop does, even in matters of merely prudential judgment. So I supposed I am welcome to pursue any inquiries I want–as long as I also accept that I am barred from the sacraments and out of the Church for doing so.

Let me ask you this: Do you feel yourself at liberty to completely ignore and disregard the teaching of your Bishop?

Of course not. I have probably paid more attention to the man’s teaching than even the people who work for him, and I have spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to make sense of it. For a long time I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed I must just be missing something. But being a bishop doesn’t change wrong into right–and this bishop has been wrong many times, sometimes spectacularly so. And that creates a real problem for those of us under his jurisdiction who actually care about the truth.

I’m not the only person in my diocese who is faced with these difficulties. Many of us have tried, as carefully and respectfully as we could, to raise these issues with the bishop and his chancery officials through various channels, with no effect except to get ourselves publicly denounced as disrespectful, disobedient, enemies of God and his Church, and even servants of Satan. There is no dialogue with these people; only a monologue in which they tell us what’s what and we either accept it or get out. As a result, lots of people are getting out, and a lot more are utterly miserable and thinking about leaving. As for appealing to Rome, that has been tried as well. Some letters come back stamped “refused”. Others are ignored. The rest receive a reply which, in essence, says, “Shut up and do as you are told.”

 

[Sardath]

In some countries, it is legal to drink at 18, and in others it is against the law. That’s because a nation (state, city, county) has authority to make the rules. … What is perfectly legal in one jurisdiction might even be a capital crime in another.

But cities, counties, states, and even nations are not allowed to simply do as they please; each is subject to some higher authority if they overstep the bounds. The same is at least theoretically true in the Church. A bishop is not allowed to simply do as he pleases, even within the boundaries of his own diocese. He must teach in accord with scripture and apostolic tradition and the dogma of the Church; he must act in accord with canon law and the instructions of the Holy See; he must remain in communion with his fellow bishops and in hierarchical subjection to the Successor of Peter. And if he exceeds these limits he can be disciplined, even to the point of being removed from his office and excommunicated (as Archbishop Lefebvre discovered some years ago when he ordained his own bishops without permission from Rome).

A Bishop is absolutely sovereign in his own Diocese - if you live in his Diocese then you are subject to his authority. Only the full Universal Magersterium (either Ordinary or Extraordinary) can supercede his teaching authority. Not even the Pope can supercede this authority, unless he invokes ex Cathedra. It has always been this way.

No, it hasn’t, and in fact it hasn’t been this way for a very long time. This is more or less the theory of the episcopacy put forward by Cyprian of Carthage in the third century; but the bishop of Rome vehemently disagreed with Cyprian, and in the end Rome won. In fact, at the First Vatican Council, Rome won decisively and irrevocably when it was defined “that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”

And this “pre-eminence of ordinary and jurisdictional power” is distinguished from “the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff”, which is taken up elsewhere, so we’re not just talking here about “infallible decrees”, but about anything and everything pertaining to the teaching and governing of the entire Church or any part thereof.

But, unlike legal jurisdictions, you have far more leeway in the Church. You are not compelled to accept any teaching that opposes morality (including your firm conviction of truth), and you are only required to give assent of faith to those teachings which do not oppose morality (meaning you are free to charitably dispute them, as long as you accept the possibility you could be mistaken).

This is not correct either, at least according to Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF, who have taught extensively on this subject. According to them, not only the dogma of the Church but also the “definitive” acts of the magisterium require the “firm and definitive” assent of faith; this includes such things as “the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations” and so forth. Furthermore, “there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent” that is required, whether we are talking about the articles of the Nicene Creed or the Church’s declaration that the founder of Opus Dei is in heaven.

And if on any such matter you find yourself less than fully convinced, then you are guilty of “rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine” and “therefore no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church.” In other words, you are no better off than a Presbyterian or a Baptist, and no more entitled than they would be to receive the sacraments of the Church. And again, according to Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF, no dissent whatever is allowed on any of this, and conscience is no excuse; “the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent.” Even professional theologians, fully credentialed by the Church itself, are told that their only recourse in such matters is to “suffer in silence” with the assurance that if they are truly correct then the magisterium will eventually figure it out. And if not, well … too bad.

You can find all this laid out at great length in official CDF documents:

Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei

Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian

These are heavy slogging and may require several readings to puzzle them out, but once you do they are actually pretty clear. And once you’ve read and understood them, you may have an entirely different view about how this stuff works.

 

[DavidFilmer]

[regarding my mention of assent of faith]This is not language I am familiar with. Could you explain what you mean by these expressions, and how they are to be distinguished?

You are probably familiar with the doctrine, but maybe not the terms. It seems there are many terms to describe the doctrine.

The Catholic Church has always accepted the idea of a “hierarchy of truth.”

I “came of age” theologically in the traditional Anglican movement, which used the term “assent of faith” to describe teachings which we might have reservations about (or even which make no sense to us, or oppose reason), but we accept them because they come from an authority which has more competence than us. In other words, we have “faith” in our teacher (even if we otherwise feel the teaching is nuts).

This type of acceptance not a purely theological idea. Advanced branches of math and science, for example, teach things that seem completely unreasonable. Ancient Greeks discovered the existence of irrational numbers (by proving that the square-root of two was such a number, using one of the most eloquent proofs ever written), but they swore themselves to secrecy because they feared others would think them mad if they proposed the existence of a number that could not be expressed as a fraction. Quantum physics is perhaps the most obvious modern example, but many people accept these “wacky” ideas, even if they can’t understand them. Basically, they say, “that’s flippin’ crazy, but I will take you word for it because you are in a position to know a lot more than me.”

And dissent is perfectly acceptable. Lenny Susskind challenged Steven Hawkings’ view that black holes are unique structures in space-time which are able to violate one of physics most fundamental laws. And, eventually, Hawkins conceded.

“Assent of the heart” is what traditional Anglicans call the idea of complete submission of both intellect and will. An example of such a doctrine would be the divinity of Christ.

However, it seems that other terms are used in the Catholic Church. “Assent of Faith” is full and unconditional acceptance. “Religious submission of intellect and will” means the lesser version of assent. Vatican II used the terms “theological faith” and “religious assent.”

These are sometimes also called “sacred” and “ordinary” assent. No particular terminology seems to have become decisive. I’ll use the terms “sacred” and “ordinary” here because they are brief and fairly self-defining.

This question of authority and assent seems at the core of your objections, so, if you don’t mind, I will choose to focus on this aspect, as the discussion is otherwise becoming too fragmented.

No Catholic may dispute teachings which require sacred assent. These doctrines are limited to those defined *ex cathedra (Extraordinary Magisterium), *or by the Bishops acting in unison with the Pope, whether gathered in Ecumenical Council (Extraordinary Magisterium) or dispersed but proposing definitively (Ordinary Magisterium).

There must be no question about which teachings fall into this category:

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident (Canon 749)

No Bishop teaching alone can require sacred assent (unless he happens to be the Bishop of Rome).

However, Bishops are entitled to ordinary consent:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious [ordinary] assent. (Lumen Gentium 25)

“Sacred” assent precludes any dissent. Thus, “ordinary” assent must allow some measure of dissent (otherwise they would be of the same authority). This is called “faithful dissent.”

While researching the various terminology, I found this website which explains it well:

ince ordinary assent pertains to only ordinary teachings, which may contain errors, ordinary assent by its very nature must include the possibility of faithful dissent from particular ordinary teachings. The claim that ordinary assent precludes all faithful dissent, and that all ordinary teachings must be adhered to without exception, is a heresy against the Catholic Faith. Such an approach treats what is non-infallible as if it were infallible, and abandons the sincere search for truth in favor of blind obedience to authority. Sacred assent is required of infallible teachings because those teachings are certainly true, not merely because the teachings are authoritative. Ordinary assent permits particular occasions of dissent from particular teachings because such teachings are not infallible and may contain errors, to a limited extent.

The requirements for any dissent to be faithful are as follows:

1. 
   *]The teaching from which one dissents must be a non-infallible teaching, which is not essential to the path of salvation (ordinary non-infallible teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit from errors that would lead one away from the path of salvation)
   *]The dissenter must be faithful to the infallible teachings of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium, and also generally faithful to the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.
   *]The basis for dissent must be a teaching of greater authority within the teachings of the Magisterium, or within Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

1. 
   You are not (apparently) claiming that your Bishop’s teaching actually leads the Faithful *away *from salvation, and you are (apparently) not unfaithful to the general teachings of the Church, and you (apparently) have a basis for your belief in Sacred Scripture.
   
   Why do you think you are a heretic?

 

[mpartyka]

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.”

I hate to point this out since you’re using Irenaeus as support, but Irenaues also attributed this whopper to Apostolic Tradition:

Against Heresies 2:22:5-6 – …from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement…But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period…He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?”

I consider this proof positive that an individual bishop can not only teach error but also teach it authoritatively under the guise of Apostolic Tradition…which ought to give you some comfort concerning your own bishop, whom you clearly feel is wrong on the issue of Enoch and Elijah though he touts his teaching as infallible Church doctrine.

And on Enoch and Elijah, I think I happen to agree with you, too. My personal view, take it or leave it, is that Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven prior to their deaths to await the day when they would return to earth as the “two witnesses” of the Apocalypse, at which time they would finally experience death and then be raised from the dead and taken bodily to heaven. Given that Satan himself can appear before the throne of God in heaven (per the book of Job), I see no reason why a human being couldn’t be allowed and enabled to camp out in heaven for an extended period of time – a sort of temporary, pre-personal-resurrection assumption, which is to be distinguished from Mary’s permanent, post-personal-resurrection Assumption. (Though you do make an excellent point concerning the saints who were raised at the end of Matthew’s Gospel – where could they have gone, if not to heaven? I’ve heard some say that they were raised only temporarily, only to die another natural death thereafter, but that seems unreasonably cruel…and risky, if one could sin and lose his/her salvation between natural death #1 and natural death #2. Or maybe they just rose for a few hours, did their preaching to their still-living relatives, and returned to their graves? I doubt we could ever reach a firm conclusion on what happened there.)

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

No Bishop teaching alone can require sacred assent (unless he happens to be the Bishop of Rome).

But even the Bishop of Rome’s teaching can be refused sacred assent if he teaches alone and without fulfilling all the requirements of papal infallibility, correct?

–Mike

 

[Analyticalpoet]

What is important to understand is that all Catholics are required to believe in the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother, Mary, into heaven. What is not required to be believed are whether or not others have been assumed too. On a side note, we are also not required to believe whether or not Our Lady Mary physically died or not. What is an article of Faith is Our Lady, Mary’s Assumption. If it is beneficial for discussion, than Enoch and Elijah may be referenced, but one is not required to believe that they too were assumed into heaven. I know this may be a slipper slope to stand on, but Enoch and Elijah’s alleged assumption are not perdinent to our Salvation, only Our Lady’s is.

As to another point, while St. Ireneaus may have claimed apostolic succession to teach of Our Lord’s age, that was still a personal belief of his. Our Lord’s age is not perdinent to our Salvation. One may claim Apostolic Succession to teach such and such, but if it is not done in communion with Rome and the Ordinary magistirium, it remains a personal belief. That is what is evident in St. Ireneaus.

 

[Sardath]

The Catholic Church has always accepted the idea of a “hierarchy of truth.”

Perhaps, but the current official line as to what this expression means may be somewhat different from how you are understanding it. See, for example:

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/dbushman_hiertruths_sept05.asp

No Catholic may dispute teachings which require sacred assent. These doctrines are limited to those defined *ex cathedra (Extraordinary Magisterium), *or by the Bishops acting in unison with the Pope, whether gathered in Ecumenical Council (Extraordinary Magisterium) or dispersed but proposing definitively (Ordinary Magisterium).

That was the original understanding, but it is not the game the current magisterium is playing. JP2 changed canon law to add a new article (Canon 750.2) extending the infallibility of the magisterium to a much larger range of issues, including the canonization of saints and the supposed inability of the Church to ordain women. Similarly, the teaching of Humanae Vitae, whose infallibility was explicitly denied at the time it was promulgated, is now claimed to be infallible after all. This broader infallibility goes far beyond the boundaries taught by either Vatican I or Vatican II, but it is the system we are living under now–although most people don’t yet realize it.

No Bishop teaching alone can require sacred assent (unless he happens to be the Bishop of Rome).

He can if he decides that whatever he is teaching has already been infallibly taught by the magisterium, even if it is not at all evident that this is the case. And this is what my own bishop has done. Whatever may be the case elsewhere, in his diocese every Catholic is obligated to believe “every single thing that’s in the Catechism”, and in fact “all the teachings of the Catholic Church” (whatever the bishop decides those are) or he is no longer “with the bishop” and therefore out of the Church.

However, Bishops are entitled to ordinary consent: “Sacred” assent precludes any dissent. Thus, “ordinary” assent must allow some measure of dissent (otherwise they would be of the same authority). This is called “faithful dissent.”

But it remains “faithful” only if the bishop allows it, and if he disallows it then you can still be excommunicated for it. This is what happened, for example, in the Diocese of Lincoln some years ago, when Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated all the members of Call to Action residing in his diocese (along with all the members of the SSPX and a whole bunch of other organizations the bishop didn’t like). The CTA members appealed to Rome; Rome affirmed the excommunication not only on the general grounds of the bishop’s right to rule his own diocese, but also on the specific grounds that Call to Action had a long history of opposing the “doctrine and discipline” of the Church. But CTA had always been very careful never to cross the line into “unfaithful dissent” by rejecting truths which required “divine and catholic faith”; their opposition was restricted to issues like women’s ordination and clerical celibacy, where supposedly there was still some room for “faithful dissent”. It didn’t do them any good. They were all excommunicated anyway; and when they appealed again to the Apostolic Signatura, which is the Catholic Church’s supreme court, the appeal was rejected again–this time for “lack of jurisdiction”.

So apparently a diocesan bishop has the right to set any conditions he likes for being in communion with him, and Rome will back him to the hilt, even if those conditions amount to forbidding “faithful dissent” on issues which Rome itself does not consider sufficient grounds for excommunication.

While researching the various terminology, I found this website which explains it well

I wouldn’t rely too heavily on Mr. Conte’s understanding of such matters. For one thing, he explicitly rejects the notion that the canonization of saints falls within the purview of infallibility, when the current pope and the CDF have explicitly said that it does. Mr. Conte’s web page is a good explanation of what Mr. Conte thinks the Church ought to teach, not what it actually teaches.

You are not (apparently) claiming that your Bishop’s teaching actually leads the Faithful *away *from salvation, and you are (apparently) not unfaithful to the general teachings of the Church, and you (apparently) have a basis for your belief in Sacred Scripture. Why do you think you are a heretic?

It is not an issue of heresy, but of schism. Canon 751: “Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Canon 1364: “A schismatic incurs automatic excommunication.” My bishop has made it a condition of communion with him that I accept everything he teaches as “the teaching of the Church” (even if it isn’t), that I believe “every single thing in the Catechism” (when even the pope himself has suggested that some of the things in it need to be reconsidered), and that I accept and support every one of his administrative acts as the work of the Holy Spirit, including those that have scandalized the faithful and given every indication of being unjust. Since I cannot in good conscience conform to those conditions, I am by the bishop’s own declaration no longer in communion with him–and therefore, under the terms of canon law, excommunicated latae sententiae.

 

[Sardath]

But even the Bishop of Rome’s teaching can be refused sacred assent if he teaches alone and without fulfilling all the requirements of papal infallibility, correct?

It depends. As I mentioned before, when Humanae Vitae was promulgated it was explicitly stated that it was not infallible and therefore did not require the assent of faith … but now Rome is saying that even if the encyclical itself was not an infallible definition, the teaching it contains is infallible, so for all practical purposes it makes no difference either way. The same is true for JP2’s decree on women’s ordination (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), which–according to Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF at the time–was not an ex cathedra definition, and yet had the effect of making the pope’s position on the subject infallible anyway. And one by one, other teachings are being dragged into the “infallible” category in the same or similar ways, all in circumvention of the rules under which many of us entered the Church in the first place. The critics call it “creeping infallibilism”: What is non-infallible today may be infallible tomorrow, even without any additional ex cathedra definitions or conciliar decrees or the emergence of a new consensus among the bishops in dispersion. Whatever the theory may be, the reality is that for most practical purposes anything is infallible if Rome says it is. Nothing else is required.

And even in the case of teaching which is admittedly not infallible and therefore theoretically reformable, the party line now is that public dissent is still not permitted. Again, read this:

Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian

According to this document–written by Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church’s highest theological authority short of the Pope himself) and formally approved by JP2 as well–dissent from even the “non-irreformable” teachings of the Church cannot be justified even if:

• the validity of the teaching in question is not evident;
• a contrary teaching is more probable;
• the body of the faithful as a whole have failed to receive it.

Nor can one legitimately assert any claim that:

• one has a fundamental human right to freely accept and obey the truth as one sees it;
• in its proceedings against dissidents the Church has violated human rights or acted contrary to justice;
• to accept the teaching would constitute a violation of conscience.

In such cases the totality of one’s recourse is to:

• inform the magisterium of one’s concerns;
• suffer in silence and prayer in the faith that someday the truth will be vindicated.

And until then: Shut up and do as you are told.

And if this is the case even when one is a trained theologian fully credentialed by the Church itself, how much wiggle room can there be for the great mass of Catholics who lack such training and experience? I submit that there is virtually none at all.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I wouldn’t rely too heavily on Mr. Conte’s understanding of such matters. For one thing, he explicitly rejects the notion that the canonization of saints falls within the purview of infallibility, when the current pope and the CDF have explicitly said that it does.

Can you provide the citation that contains such an explicit statement?

The Magisterium has never issued a document deciding whether or not the canonization of saints falls under papal infallibility. It is the opinion of many theologians that it does, but this is only a theological opinion, not a doctrine.

 

[mpartyka]

…Enoch and Elijah’s alleged assumption are not perdinent to our Salvation, only Our Lady’s is.

This will probably sound dense, but…why? I just finished reading Munificentissimus Deus, and apart from the fact that the Pope by ex cathedra fiat made belief in the Assumption a condition of one’s being Catholic, he stated absolutely nothing about the dogma that made it even one whit relevant to salvation – i.e., nothing like, “If Mary has not been assumed, then your faith is in vain.” Instead, most of his arguments fell into the category of, “Letting your mother’s body decay into dust? Why, that’s no way to treat your mother! Surely Jesus wouldn’t have permitted that!” Another of his arguments, which I thought was more reasonable, was that since Mary is the Second Eve, as Christ is the Second Adam, “it is fitting” that they should be together in heaven, bodily as well as in spirit. But then again, what is “fitting” isn’t always what is true. The real world is messy. The earth revolves around the sun, for example – it is well-known how “not fitting” this truth was to the mind of the Church at the time it became evident. And now we’ve got evolution in the mix, too – how “not fitting” is it now that we know Adam and Eve had parents? Of course, the Assumption is nothing that could ever be scientifically disproven, so one can firmly believe it in safety and comfort. But again, how is this belief “pertinent to salvation” other than the Pope made it so by his fiat? It seems to me that before Munificentissimus Deus, you could believe whatever you wanted on the subject, but after Munificentissimus Deus, you couldn’t – not because the dogma itself ever really mattered with regard to salvation, but simply because Mary’s popularity had grown exponentially among the faithful to such a level of fervor that even onesy-twosy dissents could no longer be stomached by the masses. It’s a frightening thing to think that the promulgation of a dogma that will almost certainly result in the expulsion of some people from the fellowship of the Church – not by reason of the dogma itself, but only by reason of the dogma’s promulgation – could be set in motion by something so uninspiring as “mass appeal” (pun intended). Consider the recent pushes to make Mary “Co-Mediatrix” and/or “Co-Redemptrix” via another exercise of papal infallibility. However highly one may think of Mary, are these dogmas really so “pertinent to salvation” that pushing people out of the Church over them is justified?

–Mike

 

[Sardath]

The Magisterium has never issued a document deciding whether or not the canonization of saints falls under papal infallibility. It is the opinion of many theologians that it does, but this is only a theological opinion, not a doctrine.

It is a “theological opinion” held and formally taught by the highest authorities in Rome, including the pope himself–firmly grounded in canon law and officially propounded by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document signed by its prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger. In fact, the CDF is the highest doctrinal authority there is, short of the pope himself; and now Ratzinger is the pope, which puts even more weight behind it.

Canon 750.2: “Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei:

“The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. … Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

“The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth.”

“With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).”

“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …”

 

[moondweller]

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.

Here’s what the Bible says:Gen 5:24 “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.”

2 Kin 2:11 “As they were going along and talking, behold, {there appeared} a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.”

Acts 1:9 "And after He had said these things, He was lifted up (it doesn’t say He lifted Himself up) while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight."According to the Scriptures, God took Enoch, Elijah was taken up to heaven, and Jesus was lifted up. There were those who saw Elijah and Jesus being taken up, we don’t know if anyone saw Enoch being taken by God (it’s not recorded). But Mary’s alleged “Assumption” is neither recorded in Scripture nor historically eye witnessed. It’s merely asserted by men and accepted as dogma . To discuss doctrinal details about Mary’s Assumption is like discussing details about the land of Narnia. Shouldn’t one first prove it exists?

 

[moondweller]

I know this may be a slipper slope to stand on, but Enoch and Elijah’s alleged assumption are not perdinent to our Salvation, only Our Lady’s is.

So unless a Catholic believes in the (asserted) bodily Assumption of Mary a Catholic cannot be saved? We know from the Scriptures that men are saved through personal faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31), but when, and to whom, was it divinely revealed that salvation faith includes Mary’s alleged Assumption as well? This, of course, would declare that all Protestants who believe in Christ but do not believe in Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven are damned if they refuse to believe it.