Did Enoch & Elijah Die, and What Does This Mean for Mary's Assumption?

Did Enoch & Elijah Die, and What Does This Mean for Mary's Assumption?





Elijah (2 Kings 2:11; Maccabees 2:58) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24; Sirach 44:16, 49:14; Hebrews 11:5) are recorded as having been taken by God, seemingly without tasting death. There has been debate as to where and how Elijah and Enoch were taken at the end of their lives though and what awaits them at the end of time. Some say the Scriptures may be using hyperbole to signify the holiness of both, although several Old and New Testament passages seem to indicate an actual miraculous "rapture" took place for both. Others argue that they were taken without dying to an abode outside of time and space to be close to God but were not transformed into resurrected form to enter the beatific vision. Indeed, only Jesus and Mary have resurrected bodies in heaven which cannot die again since the catechism citing church documents uses the wording "singular privelege" for Mary's assumption, a participation in her Son's glory (CCC 966). But others perhaps experienced a different kind of "heaven" where they were kept by a special grace from dying (Sheol, second heaven, etc.), yet they still have a natural body and experience an exalted state of happiness. St. Thomas Aquinas states: "Elijah was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist.” - Summa Theologia, "Question 49. The Effects of Christ's Passion". Does this mean they will eventually die at a later time before the Second Coming before receiving a final resurrected body? We can only speculate, and no one is certain. Does their fates though point to the idea that Mary did not die prior to her assumption?

Pius XII in the same document MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS which declares Mary's assumption a dogma states in paragraph 20, "this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly." Here he is confirming that the ancient liturgies of East and West clearly referred to her death and entrance into heaven in resurrected form. In fact the Eastern Catholic churches, from where the belief in Mary's assumption first came and spread, refer to her entrance into heaven as the "dormition" (sleep, like dormitory) or "translation" (change from earthly state to a blessed one) indicating that her death is a certain fact of her life. The earliest reference to Mary's assumption, the Transitus Mariae, goes back to the second and third centuries and speaks of her death and that Christ and his angels translated her body into heaven where it was then joined to her spirit.

But the actual paragraph where Pius XII uses the words "declare" and "define" which indicate that the specific papal statement carries an irreformable, permanent judgement and the full weight of infallibilty is paragraph 44: "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The simple fact that Mary has 1) a resurrected body and that 2) she is in heaven, is what a Catholic cannot deny. The document as a whole makes references to different levels of authority: the opinions of theologians, the common shared views of Fathers and Saints which may differ on detail but all point to the same core belief, and the binding statements of the Magisterium. Thus we have to read the documents with attention to language and other factors (Canon law 749 n. 3 : “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”). Paragraph 44 is very clearly the part which invokes the extraordinary magisterium.

JPII affirmed that Pius XII did not intend to exclude her death from Catholic teaching in this paragraph since Pius quotes liturgical prayers and several Western and Eastern saints who speak of her death; Pius just didn't think it necessary to settle the question at the time and left it open for theologians who wished to explore other possibilities. John Paul II though steered the Church back to the common tradition which goes back not 400 years (the theory that Mary didn't die) but 2,000 years (the belief she did die), a tradition which contains the story that Mary did die and then Christ took her body back to be reunited with her spirit to enjoy a glorious state of resurrection.

One can argue that Enoch and Elijah will never die and thus this shows that God could make an exception for anyone especially for his Mother. So a Catholic thus far is free to hold this opinion. However, the speculation is actually the youngest and a minority view in the Church vs the ancient and majority view that she did die. It's a detail Catholics shouldn't quibble about but the dormition of Mary is the favored story contrary to popular belief. 

But finally, the fact that Elijah and Enoch were "taken up" somehow and somewhere instead of going to the grave right away does provide a good apologetic support for Mary's assumption.  Those non-Catholics who resist the idea of Mary's assumption usually 1) misunderstand what the dogma asserts or 2) reject it because it is not explicit in Scripture which for most Protestant Christians is the only source of revelation.  Thus, when speaking with another Christian who is strictly "Bible only", the Catholic must show that not every detail regarding faith and morals is explicit in Scripture; it may be implicit in the Bible or supported in principle, and explicit in Tradition.  But if the person is willing to concede that not all facts about Christ and the Church are confined to writing, then a Catholic must be sure to explain what the assumption of Mary actually is and what it is not.  As long as we emphasize that the gift Mary received early is what all faithful Christians will someday receive (resurrection and the crown of glory), then there should be no objection on the part of the non-Catholic Christian.  He may not accept that it is a binding part of revelation, but he cannot deny that the assumption refers to anything different than the resurrection of the dead which all Christians must and do believe.