Assumption of Mary--what about Enoch and Elijah?

[Desertsailor]

Are the names of those “exceptions” documented? Or is there a short list of these “few” exceptions by which one might qualify?

Look for a list of Protestant Saints. It’s probably really short.

 

[Sardath]

They can received the sacrament the same way Catholics do. Of course they need to join the Church either now or on their death bed.

So, in your opinion, any Protestant who commits a mortal sin after baptism and thereafter fails to join the Catholic Church before death is automatically damned?

 

[Desertsailor]

=Sardath;6864570]Cheap shot, logically fallacious, etc., etc., etc. Please spare us this sort of nonsense.

Why?

And if you believe Catholic Answers is wrong, then you should tell them. “If your brother sins …” and all that.

Let them read this thread. It’s been my experience that people who own these boards are too proud to admit that they can be wrong so I won’t waste my time.

It’s certainly possible. Aquinas cites Augustine on this point: “Three general opinions prevail about paradise. Some understand a place merely corporeal; others a place entirely spiritual; while others … hold that paradise was both corporeal and spiritual.” But note that Augustine is careful to present these as merely “opinions”, not as definitive teaching. Similarly, Aquinas does not state authoritatively that Enoch and Elijah are actually resident in the earthly paradise, but only that “some say” this. That’s pretty weak support for your position. In other words, you are repeating mere theological opinion–and disputed opinion at that–as if it were a definitive truth of the Catholic faith. It’s not.

Please only read what I write. Don’t invent things and then say I said them.

True. But then according to Aquinas, what Jesus actually meant was, “Today you will be with me in hell.”

Aquinas was correct.

This is pure invention. There is no reason whatever to believe that Eden is, or ever was, hidden from mortals; if it had been, there would be no reason for God to have originally stationed cherubim and “a flaming sword which turned every way” to “guard the way to the tree of life”, since no one would have been able to see it anyway. Aquinas has a completely different explanation for why it is inaccessible: that its location is “shut off from the habitable world by mountains, or seas, or some torrid region, which cannot be crossed; and so people who have written about topography make no mention of it.”

Of course that makes no sense given today’s comprehensive knowledge of global geography–which only goes to show once again that even the greatest saints and doctors didn’t always know what they were talking about, and sometimes just made things up because they had no actual knowledge to rely on.

I didn’t invent the bible.

Genesis 3 [24] And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life

.

There’s no use in trying to find something God hid.

 

[Tomster]

Oh, another question. Not ALL Catholics believed in the alleged bodily Assumption of Mary prior to it being declared official dogma by your church leadership. So what about those Catholics who died not believing in it? Are those Catholics damned? Or does damnation apply only to those after it was declared official dogma? Is the gospel message by which one is saved through faith progressive (contrary to Jude 3)?

Guided by the Spirit of Truth dwelling within her, the Church - the faithful, under the teaching and leadership of their bishops - has always seen the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother into heaven as her crowning privilege implicitly contained within the complete notion of the Divine Maternity. The Church sees it there, not as result of a logical deduction, but as one element of that miracle of miracles which God willed His Mother to be. The Church sees it with supernatural insight imparted by the Divine Spirit Who dwells within her. The complete notion of the Divine Maternity contains within its connotation much more than the fact that Mary gave birth to the Son of God.

Again, the faithful under the leadership of their bishops have always believed that this “august tabernacle of the Divine Word” had never been reduced to dust and ashes. For associated with Her Son in His complete victory over the empire of Satan, she shared with Him in His victory over the empire of Satan and, therefore, death (Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14;; Romans 8:10). Like Him, she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her sacred body as we do (Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:52-56), but through her anticipated resurrection in the likeness of her Son "she received the blessings of the Redemptionfirst and in the fullest measure.

The faithful have professed this belief under the leadership of their pastors.

This faith has been shown in churches, images, various exercises of piety.

This faith has been shown in the Church’s solemn liturgies.

This faith has been shown in the writings of the Doctors and Theologians of the Church.

 

[Tomster]

No, really, according to the Scriptures. But we can’t get into that here.

We already have elswhere and your position regarding OSAS has been refuted by Catholics and another Protestant.

 

[mulrooney]

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.

Your bishop seems to equate Jesus with Mary, in their personage. Your 2nd paragraph says that the only humans who ever received this unique privilege were Jesus and Mary. Jesus, as Almighty God the Son, and Divine in personage, (remember, He was, is and always will be a Divine Person) dispenses unique privileges, He does not receive them in the order of mankind. Yoour bishop, if he holds to this, is an out and out heretic.

 

[mpartyka]

Not ALL Catholics believed in the alleged bodily Assumption of Mary prior to it being declared official dogma by your church leadership. So what about those Catholics who died not believing in it? Are those Catholics damned? Or does damnation apply only to those after it was declared official dogma?

I think you will find that the answer is the latter – until belief in the Assumption was made incumbent upon all Catholics through the promulgation of Munificentissimus Deus, a Catholic was free to disbelieve in the Assumption without forsaking his/her salvation. It really has to be that way when you think about it, because Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, yet he was declared a saint:

If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb…Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception…she contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): “All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful.” – Summa Theologica Q27-A2-R2,3,4

–Mike

 

[Desertsailor]

So, in your opinion, any Protestant who commits a mortal sin after baptism and thereafter fails to join the Catholic Church before death is automatically damned?

How many times do I have to say it?

What about Catholics who commit mortal sins and don’t get absolution? If they die they go to hell. You ought to know this.

 

[Tomster]

Because it presents a totally different perspective on salvation. According to the Catholic view, am I, a Protestant who does not believe in the alleged bodily Assumption of Mary, damned? IOW, am I damned for not believing something that is not revealed in God’s written Word? For not believing in something other than the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ?

But to answer your question, I’m not as concerned as I am curious since, yes, I do believe that I am saved and eternally secure in that salvation - according to the Scriptures.

I am in absolutely no position to determine who is damned and who is not. And I am in absolutely no position to determine who is saved and who is not. Those are God’s decisions and His alone. Far be it for me to assume, unlike the words you directed to me on another occasion, who is saved and who is not.

BTW- You really should take the advice of St. Paul and take heed that you do not fall.

 

[Sardath]

Why?

Why shouldn’t you indulge in cheap shots, logical fallacies, and self-serving hypocritical criticism of others for the same behavior you yourself are indulging in? Because … oh, never mind.

Let them read this thread. It’s been my experience that people who own these boards are too proud to admit that they can be wrong so I won’t waste my time.

So when Jesus said, “If your brother sins, rebuke him,” those were only guidelines? Or do you not consider the people who run Catholic Answers to be your brethren?

Please only read what I write.

I’m sure you’d like that, but I’ll read whatever I please. I don’t need your permission to do so.

Don’t invent things and then say I said them.

You said: “Paradise is the Garden of Eden. This is where Enoch and Elijah are at this time. They never died so they can’t be in Heaven which is a different place than the Garden of Eden.” You stated this as fact. You also stated that I, and Catholic Answers, are wrong for saying otherwise, and that we have an obligation to admit our (alleged) error and to correct those we have (allegedly) misinformed. Since this is a Catholic board, and you are speaking not only as a Catholic, but as a “hardcore Catholic” who believes “everything the Church teaches without question”, then I think it is a fair assumption that when you spout off this authoritatively on an issue of Catholic teaching, you believe you are presenting “the teaching of the Church”–and not just spouting your own personal opinion, which carries no authority whatever and can be safely ignored by the rest of us. So which is it?

I didn’t invent the bible.

But neither are you an authoritative interpreter of it, nor even an “authentic” teacher of what it says unless you are a bishop or better.

There’s no use in trying to find something God hid.

So where, exactly, does the Bible say that God “hid” Eden so that it doesn’t show up on global planetary surveys taken from orbit with high resolution cameras?

 

[Tomster]

I think you will find that the answer is the latter – until belief in the Assumption was made incumbent upon all Catholics through the promulgation of Munificentissimus Deus, a Catholic was free to disbelieve in the Assumption without forsaking his/her salvation. It really has to be that way when you think about it, because Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, yet he was declared a saint:

–Mike

Thanks for your reply. What also must be taken into consideration in regards to the teachings of St. Thomas are thirteen questions of his Summa (Suppl., QQ. lxxv-lxxxvii) and eleven chapters of his Summa contra Gentiles (Lib. IV, cc. 79-89).

 

[Tomster]

Moon,

In the Gospel account of our Lord’s Transfiguration we read that he was “transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow.” (Matthew 17:2) It is the Traditional teaching of Catholic theology that this splendor was the normal quality of Christ’s body, the body that Mary gave him. His human soul, by reason of its hypostatical union with the Eternal Word, enjoyed the beatific vision. But the connatural effect of this vision is the glorification, the transfiguration of the body. However, Christ as man, for the purposes of the Incarnation, restrained the effect, and only once, in his Transfiguration, allowed that glory to be seen.

So is it with the risen body as it was with the body of Christ in his Transfiguration. By virtue of the gift of glory the Blessed (remember, now, that verse from Scripture, “all generations shall call me blessed”) enjoy the beatific vision, and the power and splendor of the vision embrace not the soul only, but also the body. St. Paul says: “We all, beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Corinthians 3:18)

You really should take a deeper look into your own ideas regarding Incarnational theology.

Moon,

Glad to see you have finally agreed to rethink your position on this matter. If only you could get over all of that OSAS nonsense you have been spewing.

 

[Sardath]

What about Catholics who commit mortal sins and don’t get absolution? If they die they go to hell. You ought to know this.

I know that Catholics who commit mortal sins and don’t repent go to hell. So do Protestants. So does anyone else–that’s what it means for a sin to be “mortal”. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

You seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that a Protestant who commits a mortal sin and does not join the Church before death cannot be saved, because the only way to be forgiven a mortal sin is through the sacrament of reconciliation performed in persona Christi by a Catholic priest. Is that a correct statement of your position? If not, please clarify.

 

[Tomster]

I think you will find that the answer is the latter – until belief in the Assumption was made incumbent upon all Catholics through the promulgation of Munificentissimus Deus, a Catholic was free to disbelieve in the Assumption without forsaking his/her salvation. It really has to be that way when you think about it, because Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, yet he was declared a saint:

–Mike

St. Thomas argues that man is a real unity of body and soul, no fortuituos or accidental compound; that all his deeds are the deeds of this unitary agent; and that therefore the complete man, both body and soul, should receive the meed that his deeds have earned. And further, that the soul’s state is more perfect when it is in the body, because it belongs to a whole of which the body is an integral part; that this is its nature as assigned to it by God; and that therefore it is more conformable to God, more fully in its likeness, when it is united to the body.

One can see in the above how God intended the true Church He established to be organized. But that is for another discussion. (Cf. The Mystical Body of Christ - Pope Pius XII)

With this brief illustration of the teaching of St. Thomas the evidence of Tradition is overwhelmingly plain and does not need further emphasis. Creeds, Councils, Fathers, Liturgy: all these agree in proclaiming the doctrine in the literal sense. The ancient belief of the Church in the bodily Assumption of the Mother of God stands out as a practical affirmation of it. And such was the doctrine to St. Irenaeus, to St. Augustine, to St. Thomas, such is it to the Catholic Church of the present day.

 

[Tomster]

I know that Catholics who commit mortal sins and don’t repent go to hell. So do Protestants. So does anyone else–that’s what it means for a sin to be “mortal”. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

You seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that a Protestant who commits a mortal sin and does not join the Church before death cannot be saved, because the only way to be forgiven a mortal sin is through the sacrament of reconciliation performed in persona Christi by a Catholic priest. Is that a correct statement of your position? If not, please clarify.

Sardath,

Some Protestants, and I mean only some, do not believe that mortal sin sends them to hell. This type of Protestant does not even distinguish between mortal and venial. They believe that once they have accpted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior not even sin can separate them from their eternal reward. Its a belief in a cheap type of salvation which is totally unscriptural. They believe, as their man-made tradition states, that they are covered by Christ and that if any sin remains at the moment of their death, God sees Christ and not the sinner because of the one time acceptance of Christ by the sinner. Its really a presumptuous and prideful interpretation of the Scriptural teachings regarding salvation.

 

[mpartyka]

St. Thomas argues that man is a real unity of body and soul, [etc., etc.]

I don’t understand what you’re arguing here. My statement was that Catholics who lived prior to or unaware of the promulgation of Munificentissimus Deus were not bound to believe in the Assumption on pain of excommunication, just as Thomas Aquinas obviously wasn’t bound on pain of excommunication to believe in the Immaculate Conception, seeing how he argued against it in his Summa Theologica yet was later declared a saint by the Church. He is a saint, correct? And saints are known to be in heaven? Yet during his earthly life he apparently did not believe that Mary had been spared the stain of original sin – nor, probably, did many Catholics, including many at Rome, since the Feast of Mary’s Conception was not established by Rome as a universal Feast of the Church until about 200 years after Aquinas’ death.

In short, prior to Ineffablis Deus, a Catholic could disbelieve in the Immaculate Conception without forfeiting his/her salvation, but after Ineffablis Deus, belief in the Immaculate Conception became a requirement for salvation. And the same goes likewise for Munificentissimus Deus and the Assumption. Am I correct or incorrect on this? I’m seriously asking, because maybe I’m not understanding properly.

–Mike

 

[Sardath]

Your bishop seems to equate Jesus with Mary, in their personage. Your 2nd paragraph says that the only humans who ever received this unique privilege were Jesus and Mary. Jesus, as Almighty God the Son, and Divine in personage, (remember, He was, is and always will be a Divine Person) dispenses unique privileges, He does not receive them in the order of mankind. Your bishop, if he holds to this, is an out and out heretic.

To be fair to the bishop, I was paraphrasing and probably implied more than he meant. His intention was certainly not to denigrate the divinity of Christ but to emphasize the uniqueness of Mary by bracketing her with Jesus as (in the bishop’s words) “the only one body and soul in heaven with a risen body like Jesus” and “the only one besides Jesus fully alive in heaven”. I do think there is good reason, both scriptural and traditional, for disputing both of these statements, but I wouldn’t want to be understood as accusing the bishop of something he didn’t mean.

(On the other hand, we do have to be careful about emphasizing Jesus’ divinity in such a way as to diminish his humanity. Both the apostolic preaching in the Book of Acts and Paul’s explication of the gospel in his letters repeatedly state that Jesus was raised (passive), with God the Father being either stated or implied as the active agent. And in the gospels Jesus repeatedly expresses himself in terms that indicate his total submission to and reliance on his Father: “The Son does only what he sees the Father doing,” and “the Father is greater than I.” We don’t want to make too much out of such statements, but we also don’t want to make too little of them; orthodoxy consists in achieving the right balance between the two extremes.)

Anyway, since we’re back on the subject of my bishop’s pronouncements, here is another statement by the same bishop along the same lines, which many of us found to be even more problematic–and this time I’ll quote it exactly so there won’t be any misunderstanding:

“Jesus took his body and blood according to the flesh from Mary, so that when we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist at Mass, the body and blood of Jesus that we receive was taken from Mary–it’s her body and blood. That’s where he got it. … The Eucharist, whether we are aware of it or not, brings us into the closest communion with Jesus Christ, but also brings us into the closest communion with Mary, because his body and blood are her body and blood according to the flesh.”

I’d be interested to see what people think about that one.

 

[Sardath]

Sardath,

Some Protestants, and I mean only some, do not believe that mortal sin sends them to hell. This type of Protestant does not even distinguish between mortal and venial. They believe that once they have accpted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior not even sin can separate them from their eternal reward. Its a belief in a cheap type of salvation which is totally unscriptural. They believe, as their man-made tradition states, that they are covered by Christ and that if any sin remains at the moment of their death, God sees Christ and not the sinner because of the one time acceptance of Christ by the sinner. Its really a presumptuous and prideful interpretation of the Scriptural teachings regarding salvation.

Yes, I understand that, and I agree with you completely, including your evaluation of how “once saved always saved” fails to accurately reflect the teaching of scripture. What I’m trying to do right now is to get a clear picture of the position that Desertsailor is offering as the supposedly Catholic alternative. Hopefully his next reply will make that a bit clearer …

 

[mpartyka]

Anyway, since we’re back on the subject of my bishop’s pronouncements, here is another statement by the same bishop along the same lines, which many of us found to be even more problematic–and this time I’ll quote it exactly so there won’t be any misunderstanding:

“Jesus took his body and blood according to the flesh from Mary, so that when we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist at Mass, the body and blood of Jesus that we receive was taken from Mary–it’s her body and blood. That’s where he got it. … The Eucharist, whether we are aware of it or not, brings us into the closest communion with Jesus Christ, but also brings us into the closest communion with Mary, because his body and blood are her body and blood according to the flesh.”

I’d be interested to see what people think about that one.

Ehh…so long as he’s not going so far as to say that Mary’s resurrected body and blood are also present in the Eucharist right along with the Body and Blood of Christ, I’d give him the benefit of a doubt. (Hmm…is it proper to say, “benefit of a doubt,” when it comes to matters of faith?) Otherwise, it seems like all he’s doing is offering up a little “think of it this way” exercise.

–Mike

 

[Sardath]

Ehh…so long as he’s not going so far as to say that Mary’s resurrected body and blood are also present in the Eucharist right along with the Body and Blood of Christ, I’d give him the benefit of a doubt. (Hmm…is it proper to say, “benefit of a doubt,” when it comes to matters of faith?) Otherwise, it seems like all he’s doing is offering up a little “think of it this way” exercise.

I have no problem with speculative theology and “think of it this way” meditations, as long as they are clearly labeled as such; we can learn a lot that way. But remember, this is a bishop who has repeatedly told us that he “never” expresses personal opinions on such matters, and that he teaches “only what the Church teaches” on anything touching upon faith and morals–and, further, that if we disagree with “what the Church teaches” then we are not really Catholic and no longer welcome to receive the sacraments. That puts a somewhat different spin on things.

The logical thing to do, of course, would be to try to get some clarification about how literally we are to take all this, but efforts to do so have yielded nothing good. In my own case, correspondence with the appropriate authorities in the diocesan chancery received a response (actually several responses, each of them increasingly hostile and abusive) telling me, in essence, that I don’t understand the first thing about Catholic theology or even basic logic, that my questions were ridiculous, and that the probable reason I don’t appreciate our bishop’s “beautiful teaching” is that I am in a state of mortal sin. But I suppose it could be worse. My own pastor publicly stated that those of us who are not fully on board with the bishop’s agenda (including shutting down our flourishing, economically viable, and highly orthodox parish) are either mentally ill or outright servants of Satan.

These are not easy people to deal with.