Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Selah]

We believe that which has been revealed to us by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

 

I agree with this, though I may have worded my response wrong. 

 

The Assumption was revealed to the Church. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree with this, though I may have worded my response wrong. 

 

The Assumption was revealed to the Church. 

I think you basically got it. You were not wrong, certainly

[Dr_Asik]

Also there were many things revealed to the Apostles at Pentecost, some of which they did not write down. Hence the oral tradition. It seems reasonable to me that they may have even known Mary was to be assumed into heaven even before it occurred. 

There is no evidence that the Apostles held such a belief after Pentecost. The earliest apocryphals mentioning the Assumption of Mary date from the 4th or 5th century. See New Advent:

 

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

 

Edited June 23, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Nihil Obstat]

PROP FEST!!!

[Nihil Obstat]

There is no evidence that the Apostles held such a belief after Pentecost. The earliest apocryphals mentioning the Assumption of Mary date from the 4th or 5th century. See New Advent:

 

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

Once again, we are talking about oral tradition. That means that we do not really care whether or not it was written down. It was held and believed (and taught) by the Church, whether or not there are extant writings which reflect it.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Credo in Deum]

We believe that which has been revealed to us by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

How dare you believe this! What do you think the Church is, the Pillar of Truth?

XD Edited June 23, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Nihil Obstat]

How dare you believe this! What do you think the Church is, the Pillar of Truth? XD

Well, at least 95% or something. :|

[Perigrina]

But which time period of the Church? I am merely not convinced that throughout the 2,000 years of Catholicism the Church has always held to the same beliefs as it does now. We had a conciliar period which rejected the idea of ultramontanism. If the council were allowed to decide matters against the Pope, we may have had a more moderate stance on birth-control since the committee of bishops at Vatican II recommended for a moderate position, which Pope Paul VI over-ruled with Humanae Vitae. Infallibility appears to be an invention of the medieval period. Besides, it is not even logical to infallibly decree infallibility, before one infallibly possesses infallibility. 

 

This article in the Catholic Encyclopedia traces the idea of Church infallibility from its implicit beginnings in Scripture to its explicit definition at Vatican I. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

What is the alternative to infallibility?  People choose among Church teachings which they will accept?  What criteria do they use?  How do they resolve disagreements?  We do not even have a model for how a Church without infallibility could operate.

[Dr_Asik]

Is there historical basis for the Virgin birth?

 

The Resurrection?

For the Virgin birth, I don't know. The Resurrection, yes, plenty. That's why I converted back from atheism to Christianity. And, really, if Christ didn't rise from the dead then your whole idea of faith is bankrupt, and that's something Paul was saying back in 50 A.D..

 

[Credo in Deum]

This article in the Catholic Encyclopedia traces the idea of Church infallibility from its implicit beginnings in Scripture to its explicit definition at Vatican I. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

What is the alternative to infallibility? People choose among Church teachings which they will accept? What criteria do they use? How do they resolve disagreements? We do not even have a model for how a Church without infallibility could operate.

We've seen the outcome. It's called Protestantism and it hasn't done much in the way of unifying Christians.

[Dr_Asik]

Once again, we are talking about oral tradition. That means that we do not really care whether or not it was written down. It was held and believed (and taught) by the Church, whether or not there are extant writings which reflect it.

What makes you think that there was an oral tradition of the Assumption of Mary that dates back to the original Apostles? You can't just assume that.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Whenever we talk about Apostolic Tradition, I like to bring out this quote. I think it is as robust a defense of oral tradition in the early Church that you could possibly want.
 
Irenaeus, in the late second century said the following to Florinus, a gnostic apostate:
 

These doctrines were not handed down to you by the presbyters who came before us and were the companions of the Apostles.

When I was still a boy I saw you in Asia Minor with Polycarp, doing splendidly in the royal court and striving to gain his approbation. I remember the events of those days better than the ones of recent years. What a boy learns grows with the mind and becomes a part of him, so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, his goings and his comings, the manner of his life, his physical appearance, as well as the discourses he delivered to the people, and how he spoke of his familiar conversation with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would recall their words to mind. All that he had heard from them concerning the Lord or about His miracles and about His teaching, having received it from eyewitnesses of the Word of Life, Polycarp related in harmony with the Scriptures.

[Nihil Obstat]

What makes you think that there was an oral tradition of the Assumption of Mary that dates back to the original Apostles? You can't just assume that.
 

We assume nothing. It has been believed and taught by the Church since Her foundation.

[Selah]

For the Virgin birth, I don't know. The Resurrection, yes, plenty. That's why I converted back from atheism to Christianity. And, really, if Christ didn't rise from the dead then your whole idea of faith is bankrupt, and that's something Paul was saying back in 50 A.D..

 

Oral tradition.

 

Remember, not everything believed by the early Christians was written down.

[Nihil Obstat]

Irenaeus tells Florinus that he remembers learning from Polycarp, who would often recall what he was taught by John. Remember, John is the same one who said - in Scripture no less:

 

 [24] This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.