Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Dr_Asik]

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

Yes, you seem to assume that 2nd statement and not be able to provide any basis for it. Simply saying that it was oral tradition is not basis for thinking that this oral tradition actually existed.

 

Edited June 23, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Selah]

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.

 

I read through John a week ago while on break, and I will always love that verse.

 

It proves that Christianity is not just a religion of a book. It's much more than that.

[Dr_Asik]

Oral tradition.

 

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

Yes, in the case of the Resurrection, there is evidence (in Paul) of very early oral tradition, so we're justified in thinking that within several years of the crucifixion, some people were already proclaiming that Jesus had been raised from the dead. But there's no evidence of oral tradition about the Assumption of Mary, and you can't just suppose that there was.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, you seem to assume that 2nd statement and not be able to provide any basis for it. Simply saying that it was oral tradition is not basis for thinking that this oral tradition actually existed.

But it does exist. We know this because it has always been taught by the orthodox hierarchy of the Church. I mean, if you are going to argue that the Church as a whole has not had a sense of these things in Tradition, then you are simply not looking. You have apparently not studied the basis of Tradition. This is unfortunate, because the Church does in fact teach that Tradition, along with Scripture and the Magisterium, constitute the Church's teaching authority. So if you truly believe as you are arguing, you are unfortunately expressing direct opposition to the Church Herself.

 

I read through John a week ago while on break, and I will always love that verse.

 

It proves that Christianity is not just a religion of a book. It's much more than that.

You know how many parts of the Bible and the Divine Office and the Mass refer back to Scriptures, but in an incomplete manner, with the understanding that referring to a characteristic part of the verse recalls perhaps the sections that precede and follow it? That has always been the idea with my signature, which has the one preceding verse. It is maybe my favourite in the whole Bible.

[Dr_Asik]

But it does exist. We know this because it has always been taught by the orthodox hierarchy of the Church.

So we know it's always been taught by the Church because it's always been taught by the Church?

 

Where's the evidence? How do you know it was taught by the early Church?

 

[Credo in Deum]

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.

Yes you can validly assume it. Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven. Are you saying God would let them be be taken up to heaven body and soul but not His sinless mother who took care of Him and shared in His sufferings, and who is the new Eve? Are we really going to believe Christ would leave her behind? Edited June 23, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Dr_Asik]

You have apparently not studied the basis of Tradition. This is unfortunate, because the Church does in fact teach that Tradition, along with Scripture and the Magisterium, constitute the Church's teaching authority. So if you truly believe as you are arguing, you are unfortunately expressing direct opposition to the Church Herself.

No, I think you have a simplistic outlook on Tradition and that the Church is apparently well able to define things as dogma without strong evidence that this teaching was always held in some form. Perhaps it is enough that the teaching never contradicted prior Tradition.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

So we know it's always been taught by the Church because it's always been taught by the Church?

 

Where's the evidence? How do you know it was taught by the early Church?

If you and I are brothers: I say to you "mom said it is time for dinner", and you say "prove it". So we go ask mom and she says "yes, I did say that". Is that not proof that she said that fifteen minutes ago? Or do I need to produce a timestamped recording for you to believe she said it?

[Nihil Obstat]

No, I think you have a simplistic outlook on Tradition and that the Church is apparently well able to define things as dogma without strong evidence that this teaching was always held in some form. Perhaps it is enough that the teaching never contradicted prior Tradition.

Have you actually read anything at all about the sources of revelation?

[Nihil Obstat]

Basically, Asik, you seem to believe in a sort of soft form of sola scriptura. Catholics reject the idea that we need a purely Scriptural basis for some foundational beliefs of the Church. Why?

[Dr_Asik]

Yes you can validly assume it. Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven. Are you saying Christ would let them be be taken up to heaven body and soul but not his sinless mother who took care of Him and shared in His sufferings, and who is the new Eve? Are we really going to believe Christ would leave her behind?

I think that your reasoning makes sense, but it's theological speculation, i.e. you're speculating events based on a theological argument. Which brings me back to my original point: the dogma is based entirely on theological speculation and has no historical or scriptural basis.

[Nihil Obstat]

What you again fail to admit is that lacking historical or Scriptural basis does not mean something is speculative. As Catholics we absolutely must believe that Sacred Tradition also communicates revelation.

[John Ryan]

When the Church defines or sets down doctrines it is not creating something new, but proclaiming what the Church has always held.

 

Rather, it chooses a side in the debate that was quite ambiguous and then proclaims that the official position.

 

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.

 

I have read through some of that article before. It is very poorly written and grasps at straws. And, are you kidding me with the second paragraph. The Church works quite well, even though people disagree with the Roman Curia on certain doctrinal points. I hate to break it to you, but so, so many Roman Catholic exercise their God-given reason and do not agree with everything the Roman Curia decrees. The Church has not collapsed. We still have 1.2 billion adherents are remain the world's largest denomination.

 

How about the Church tries pulling back on so many controversial doctrines, and leaves room for more diversity centered around the primary liturgical and sacramental aspects of the faith. So, for example, the Eucharist is central to Roman Catholicism. However, Holy Communion has been too enmeshed in Thomist philosophy. There is no reason the Church should try to define the Eucharist in strictly Aristotelian/Thomist concepts. St. Aquinas existed after an entire millennium of Christianity.

 

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

 

No, because we already have theological diversity in the Roman Catholic Church. How many Roman Catholics actually adhere to Humanae Vitae? The Protestant problem is based on the belief that schism should result from theological diversity. I am Roman Catholic, because I believe that theological difference can exist within the One True Church of Christ.

[Dr_Asik]

Have you actually read anything at all about the sources of revelation?

Yes, I did.

 

Basically, Asik, you seem to believe in a sort of soft form of sola scriptura. Catholics reject the idea that we need a purely Scriptural basis for some foundational beliefs of the Church. Why?

So, from your lack of answer at my previous post, may I infer that you do in fact assume early oral tradition of the Assumption of Mary?

 

I strongly reject the accusation you make, as I don't believe in anything like Sola Scriptura, and I'm certainly not saying that a belief without Scriptural basis cannot be valid - although it definitely is a criterion and if you read any serious treatise on dogma, scriptural basis for each belief of the Catholic Church is always carefully exposed. That said, the Assumption of Mary has neither:

 - Scriptural basis

 - Historical basis

 - Or evidence of early Church tradition

 

and is therefore based on later theological speculation.

[Dr_Asik]

If you and I are brothers: I say to you "mom said it is time for dinner", and you say "prove it". So we go ask mom and she says "yes, I did say that". Is that not proof that she said that fifteen minutes ago? Or do I need to produce a timestamped recording for you to believe she said it?

You're making a strawman of my position. Of course if I have direct access to your testimony then that is good evidence. But we don't have any sort of access to any sort of testimony of oral tradition about the Assumption of Mary. So there's NO evidence that it existed. It's not that the evidence is insufficient or not credible, it's that it doesn't exist.

 

Edited June 23, 2014 by Dr_Asik