Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
It's not up to others to disprove an assertion someone makes. It's up to the person who is making the assertion to back it up with credible enough evidence to prove that it happened.
Otherwise we can get people making all kinds of statements, demanding they be taken at face value with no basis, and they demanding others accept it as truth unless they can prove it never happened.
Wait a minute.........
Obviously you have bought the MSM nonsense about David Koresh.
Do you believe that the women and children that Wesley Clark murdered in the school basement were shooting at the Army?
.
Yeah, and Joseph Smith's gold plates are burried somewhere in upper New York and will be found. Produce them or give up the deceit.
Yeah, and Joseph Smith's gold plates are burried somewhere in upper New York and will be found. Produce them or give up the deceit.
If the work is denounced as heretical, then why is the Catholic church using it to support its doctrine of the assumption of Mary?
Oh, we do. Believe me.
The deceit is in your heart.
How can you say that? What other transcendent Infallible Authority do see in Scripture? Do you see the words of ex cathedra statements as wholly inspired of God and the transcendent Infallible Authority thru the Bible since the giving of the Law? No you cannot.
I only see one question in post 825
It is basically one, but each presupposition can be dealt with as a question.
A better description is that they are stubborn children in need of compassion rather in rebellion against God.
They need compassion because they are wrong, as the preceding statements of the RC argument are correct?
Can you prove it is a tradition of men?
Indeed, since it is not a promise or a testimony of Mary found in Scripture, and Rome teaches it as a tradition, and its absence is contrary to the practice of the Holy Spirit who is care-full to provide such notable events, or promises. And her crowning is contrary to Scripture as no one will be crowned in Heaven till the Lord returns. (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)
2Th_2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Looks like we're right on schedule then...
But it's not as though people are turning away from Jesus...It's attrition...Generations coming up are turned away from the truth by adherents of Mary worship, Izlamism, higher education which tries to prove that the word of God is old fashioned...
The key is to pick up a bible and see which religions or denominations stick the closest to the words of God...There are getting to be less and less by the day...
Mat_7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Jesus, an itinerant street preacher.
So...to be taken seriously by Catholics he would likely need gaudy robes, a big tall hat, a gilded and gem encrusted staff, a palacial mansion with golden bathroom fixtures and a huge archive of art treasures.
I’ll pass all of that up and accept His mercy and salvation, thank you!
I have pinged some of the Catholics on this thread so they may know there indeed is a refutation to the OP, and indeed if I may say so now however briefly, it is for reasons as this (that again, it's demonstrated a Protestant objection to Catholic dogma is at least not as airtight as it seems) that there are some Catholics (myself chief among them) who express disdain, and outright frustration at such tiresome displays as this. So while those among you are technically correct when you say "if all you have are silly pictures or tantrums in retort, you have nothing", the same goes both ways, and also, from my perspective as a Catholic also, it's entirely understandable. For indeed, how many times do we Catholics need to demonstrate that these "new" objections of Protestants are at the very least, debatable themselves, if not an outright foolish waste of time?
Now, to answer you metmom, the posts I was referring to were #2 by Steelfish and #52 by ronnietherocket. The latter to which still no one has offered a reply. But I will say this, with all due respect to those two gentlemen (or ladies? sorry I don't know) their posts don't address all the points in the OP, so it can be reasonably said I "misspoke" when I said "The OP is false, as has already been demonstrated in the first 200 posts".
To be clear, Steelfish and ronnietherocket raise some good points in their posts, and I think they should be taken in consideration. But I'm not going to argue their posts "demonstrate" the "OP is false".
For that, I will offer this. Briefly, that work addresses virtually all the points raised by Webster specifically in the section titled "Objections to the Assumption" there. I will attempt to summarize further:
Point 1. If Protestants use the " Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis" to show the " Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito" as false, they have a problem. This is because the same Decretal contains a list of Canonical Books, some of which Protestants reject, namely the book of Tobit and the two books of Maccabees. So if Protestants here (or anywhere) accept the Decretal of Pope Gelasius as a true document of history, then they are forced to admit that as early as the 5th century the Church (Christian) accepted those books as Canonical, and therefore the Protestants of the "Reformation" erred when they removed them from the Bible.
Point 2. The same Decretal is not as accepted as Webster implies at least not in totality. See here. The main point of that brief commentary is that the first and second sections of the Decretal (which contain the list of canonical books) are most likely truly promulgated by Pope Gelasius, but the remaining sections are spurious. I am confident the sources Webster then goes on to claim support the entire Decretal, most likely agree with this (that the list of canonical books are genuine, but the remainder of the Decretal is spurious).
Point 3. Even if the entirety of the Papal Decretal is genuine, it does not do what Webster claims, or "Condemn the teaching of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary". All it does is outlaw the reading/propigation of a particular apocryphal work that also describes (admittedly in great detail) the Assumption of Mary. But this does not mean that the belief itself was condemned! It only means that particular work that mentions it was condemned (again, if that list isn't spurious which is debatable). See the link I posted earlier for more on this
Point 4. Earlier, Webster quotes from "Mariology" (volume 2) "An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144)." and "The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150)."
This is quote mining, to be blunt (I can't think of a better term right now). For as it's pointed out, "Juniper Carol does not state that. Fr. Burghardt, who wrote the articles on the western and eastern Fathers, does not use (sic) the words "complete fabrication" or even "fabrication." What he says is although they are "valueless" as strict history, they are nonetheless "significant," and "priceless" both historically and theologically. These Transitus accounts reveal a genuine Christian insight that it was not fitting that the body of Mary should see corruption. This argument is the same made on theological lines by the Fathers, Catholic theologians, and Pius XII in his definition of the Assumption.
That is, Fr. Burghardt is not saying the texts are completely valueless, rather as a source of strict history (such as whether or not she was assumed before death or after), they are not to be relied. But as a source of an indication of the Tradition extant at the time, they are "priceless". Indeed, they show, even if "apocryphal" that Christians at that time period had a problem to face, which was: "We know Mary isn't with us bodily anymore, but we also know her grave was empty, and that no relics exist of her. So what happened to her body?" Thus they, like Pius the XIIth, concluded (reasonably) that she must have been Assumed into Heaven.
That's what Burghhardt is saying. Not that the text is valueless as a source of any knowledge, but that it can't be determined from that text (or any early text) how precisely the Assumption took place. To claim otherwise, as Webster does, is again, selectively quote mining/taking the words of Carol/Burghhardt out of context. Indeed, if anyone even just "googles" "Mariology - Juniper Carol" one can see he himself has no problem (and indeed vigorously supports the dogma of the Assumption, IN that very work! So it's absolutely preposterous to claim that somehow Fr. Carol somehow doubts the dogma. See here: Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption, from the exact same work ("Mariology") edited by Juniper Carol.
Now I'm sure some in the list I have pinged will find some error on my part to harp on (instead of reading the sources I've provided with an objective desire for truth) OR, will find some other "reason" to disagree with what was quoted, to "prove" the original post by William Webster posted by Gamecock. If that's the case, fine. I don't see how that's possible given what I've posted now, but I don't have time to go 9 rounds if indeed someone does wish to take things that far. Perhaps another Catholic will take the mantle from here, or really, I would encourage this thread to die the death its predestined to take, which is (as I said before) yet another anti-Catholic bash fest, signifying nothing.
You can't refute nonsense with undocumented nonsense. You have no more documentation then they do. You ought to know by now that undocumented speculation isn't the domain of followers of the Messiah of God' word. He said "it is written". Produce " it is written or be considered just another apostate.
I’d humbly ask that you all pray that my tinnitus be taken away by our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
You got it. Prayers up for a swift and full recovery through Jesus Christ!
Dude, there's a guy who moved from Australia to join Koresh and escaped and survived who now goes around speaking. He's now 70 some years old and says he is waiting for the ressurection of Koresh. The guys name is Clive Doyle. That's not the MSM.
Amen and Amen!!
The same way they respond to modern day street preachers...Interesting that most street preachers are Baptist, just like their namesake...
You have all heard this phrase before that “there are as many Baptists as there are flavors of Baskin-Robbins ice cream. “
Jesus was no “itinerant preacher.” That’s a pedantic phrase reserved for Al Sharptons, David Goreshs; and Jeremiah Wrights and the likes of Billy Graham, Rev. Schuller, Joel Osteens, TD Jakes.
Jesus preached in the Temple with Divine authority. Hence the passage from Scripture:
“And when he was come into the temple, there came to him, as he was teaching, the chief priests and ancients of the people, saying: By what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? “ Douay-Rheims Bible
Fundamentalists are basically anti-intellectual because they are unable to defend the whole of Scriptural text and interpretation by the very sources the early Church Fathers used to select what books constituted the Bible. That is, the received oral tradition, ritual, practice, and Divine infallibility that empowered Peter and his successors to preach THE Word of God. Not different flavors. This power was absolute: “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth…” as it was enduring until the end of time “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against thee.”
This is why Fundamentalists cannot explain how great theological minds have through studied debate and inquiry, assiduous research, and analysis conducted through the centuries confirmed the irrevocability of Petrine authority. Fundamentalists in many respects are not unlike Muslims interpreters of the Quran, where faith and reason are incompatible. To Catholics, faith and reason are braided together. Therein lies the difference!
Don’t for example expect any Fundamentalist to take the time to read such brilliant encyclicals like those of Benedict XVI: dubbed by The London Economist as the “theological Einstein of our times” whose works fill up the libraries of theological departments in every major university that has a School of Theology or at Harvard or Yale’s Divinity School. Fundamentalist minds are either incapable of grasping a higher level of thinking or as is usually the case they are, like Muslims, impermeably closed to acute reasoning and analysis: Hence why the crack open the Bible and toss out snippets of scripture.
You have all heard this phrase before that “there are as many Baptists as there are flavors of Baskin-Robbins ice cream. “
Jesus was no “itinerant preacher.” That’s a pedantic phrase reserved for Al Sharptons, David Goreshs; and Jeremiah Wrights and the likes of Billy Graham, Rev. Schuller, Joel Osteens, TD Jakes.
Jesus preached in the Temple with Divine authority. Hence the passage from Scripture:
“And when he was come into the temple, there came to him, as he was teaching, the chief priests and ancients of the people, saying: By what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? “ Douay-Rheims Bible
Fundamentalists are basically anti-intellectual because they are unable to defend the whole of Scriptural text and interpretation by the very sources the early Church Fathers used to select what books constituted the Bible. That is, the received oral tradition, ritual, practice, and Divine infallibility that empowered Peter and his successors to preach THE Word of God. Not different flavors. This power was absolute: “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth…” as it was enduring until the end of time “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against thee.”
This is why Fundamentalists cannot explain how great theological minds have through studied debate and inquiry, assiduous research, and analysis conducted through the centuries confirmed the irrevocability of Petrine authority. Fundamentalists in many respects are not unlike Muslims interpreters of the Quran, where faith and reason are incompatible. To Catholics, faith and reason are braided together. Therein lies the difference!
Don’t for example expect any Fundamentalist to take the time to read such brilliant encyclicals like those of Benedict XVI: dubbed by The London Economist as the “theological Einstein of our times” whose works fill up the libraries of theological departments in every major university that has a School of Theology or at Harvard or Yale’s Divinity School. Fundamentalist minds are either incapable of grasping a higher level of thinking or as is usually the case they are, like Muslims, impermeably closed to acute reasoning and analysis: Hence why the crack open the Bible and toss out snippets of scripture.
Dude, there’s a guy who moved from Australia to join Koresh and escaped and survived who now goes around speaking. He’s now 70 some years old and says he is waiting for the ressurection of Koresh. The guys name is Clive Doyle. That’s not the MSM.
I saw an interview of a couple from Australia who joined Koresh. Koresh declared a rule that he was the only male allowed to have sex. He had sex with all the females (including preteen girls) including this poor idiot’s wife.
That doesn’t sound like a “Christian” church and it’s certainly not “Protestant” nor “Baptist.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.