Replies

I have many issues with your contentions. Though there can be a flaw of sorts in Webster, all together your contentions are as still as smokescreen, obscuring what matters the most -- by introducing other elements which distract.

You said

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.

It is not the "use of" Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis ALONE that "shows" Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito to be false --- for that piece of Pseudo-Melito could be shown to not have come from Melito (thus false) on it's own could it not, but INSTEAD the Decretum [as above] indicates that the Church -- including a Roman Church pope or two(? hehheh, more on that later) -- knew well enough THEN that it was false.

What's that you say? Your point 4) indicates that high probability that Webster's saying "Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries" isn't accurate for reason that the Decretum itself is a fraud -- in that two popes just maybe didn't sign off on this? That would work towards greatly undermining your points 1) thru 3) and leave the rest of your point 4) just as useful for those who reject the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary for reason it is not Apostolic, or of the early patristic Fathers, for the doctrine is neither of those, as is universally admitted.

Also --regardless of early recognition that this particular Pseudo-Melito be a fake (not honestly sourced from Melito, at all) and there listing of that as among rejected writings -- rejected not as for their "canonical" status, but rejected entirely to be read at all, the inclusion of a list of allegedly canonical works in the same Decretum introduces no problem at all for Protestants as to canonical issues in regards to what came to be known as the deuterocanonicals. That is yet another subject, in a sense, a different "part" (different than part V, which part is that which concerns us here) in the Decretum whether that be a true or false Decretum.

On that score --- it is Catholics whom have the REAL problems, for Melito (the real one, as found through Origen) indicates that the Jews did not accept what Jerome referred to as OT 'Apocrypha' (which works in the era of Council of Trent became known as "deuterocanonicals").

Jerome too of course did not regard the books in question as fully equal-fully canonical to the rest of Jewish religious works which otherwise were accepted by the Jews as being their own 'canon'.

This is important -- for it drives towards just precisely what it was that Christ came to fulfill, both as written as Law, and that testified to by prophets of Israel.

So in other words..don't look now, but Melito just [figuratively] shot your overall general contentions (in points 1) & 2)) in one foot, with Jerome in echo blasting the other foot (so to speak) leaving nothing but stumpy legs for those two points to stand on. I suggest don't move any further, lest further argument along these lines lead to face-plant time when once one again bumps into the 1st century (Jewish historian/explainer to the Greco-Roman world) Flavius Josephus.

As to the contents of points 4) which you raise, it does hinge upon what was "believed at the time" -- or at least what someone wanted others to believe.

If there is clear evidence that the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito itself was not part of an original listing of writings to be avoided, signed off on by Gelasius -- then where oh where is that evidence, other than perhaps lack of evidence for it?

Is there any later correction coming from the Latin Church concerning that part 5 to indicate it was not grouped with other spurious writings? There is not. AND it has been well enough established the Transitus Beatae Mariae itself comes from the 6th century.

fwiw -- Vindiciae epistolarum Sancti Ignatii, Volume 1 By John Pearson if anyone desires to wrestle with the issue further in Latin (as according to John Pearson --somebody anybody please feel free to tell me what Pearson has to say)

Which would also mean that once the Decretum began to circulate around in any of it's forms -- the mistake of the Decretum itself being something of a forgery (even as it contained rejection of yet OTHER forgeries!) was not recognized for a long, long time, and those Decretum documents themselves if fraudulent even if in part -- but taken as truth -- being for a time included within 'teaching magesterium' even if but 'ordinary' magesterium --- leaves a significantly gaping hole in the 'ol "the church has never taught error" theory.

It's not the only 'hole', either, but never mind some others which can pointed to but are usually explained away thru application of canon law type of special pleadings while being shielded from view as much as possible by diversions which end up being as smokescreen.

And through all this "smoke" (where errors can be explained away -- as in claimed to not have been signed off "ex cathedra" etc., even though not everything need be directly subjected to that qualification to be included in "teaching magesterium" when one gets right down to it and the rubber meets the old cobblestone of the roads...) comes doctrines and dogmas concerning "Mary" smuggled in a side door, surely enough signed off on/ratified by later popes and said MUST BE believed --with it altogether based upon the quite shaky footings of FOLK BELIEF.

It does not help to ignore Epiphanius in this either, for in that man's late 4th century efforts against heresy, he did go strongly against the Collyndrians, rebuking them for their titling Mary "Queen of Heaven" and setting out little cakes for her. If he was not rejecting the Queen of Heaven content along with all the rest, then in his own extensive writings of "pious" effusive praise for her -- would not have he included mention that calling her "Queen of Heaven" was a good idea (instead of a bad one)? See also Mary, Mother of God, p.112 & 114

The first mentions of Mary having been taken up into the heavenlies (bodily) comes from yet other early-on Gnostics I believe, though since a great deal of the Gnostic writings were eventually BURNED by those of the generally more 'orthodox' church, leaving the remaining evidences slim -- unfortunately I do not recall at the moment precisely where that sort of talk can be found in reliable enough source, reliable enough to show there were Gnostics who had claimed "bodily" Assumption, rather than discussion of her spirit having been taken up "gone to heaven".

Yet...in the shift from 3rd century era Dormition type of thinking (falling asleep as euphemism for dying) and observation of varying dates for that, there came to be two differing ways Assumption was first spoken of -- one being of spirit, the other bodily, with this shift from Dormition which did not much include a going to heaven seeming to have occurred nearly simultaneously (late 4th into 5th century) in geographical areas far distant from one another.

It is like someone turned on a faucet, and out flowed all this speculative imagining regarding "Mary". From Heaven did this all flow...or was it from somewhere else? Like -- whatever 'spirits' were once Inanna, Isis, and all the rest of those varied iterations of the same Mesopotamian in-origin goddess figure? Looking into what can be known of that, one can find the "tree of life" and much else which is strikingly similar to Adam & Eve, leaving me to wonder if the Inanna type of religious thought but a corruption of the true creation story (as God would have that as framework within eventually would come Son of Promise) re-found by Moses through direct interaction with God the Father on Mt. Sinai. Abram did come from Ur of the Chaldees -- do not forget. God called Abram out of that land of polytheistic legend. Somewhow -- when God spoke to Abram, Abram (who later had his name changed to Abraham) heard and knew that voice to be the One True God. I can relate. It is God Himself who makes the indelible impression which cannot be mistaken for simply one's own thoughts (even though many do make that mistake -- Abram was NOT mistaken, nor was Peter).

Otherwise -- there is at least one proverb (in the book of Proverbs) which is plain enough to see was once in the Mesopotamian religious milieu, along with accounts of the deluge which bear quite strong resemblance to that of Noah.

If there was indeed a bodily Assumption of Mary -- WOW -- why didn't anyone other than Gnostics and heretics talk about it until CENTURIES after is presumed to have occurred? Stop right there and consider that question...

Was God holding out on us, much like Maria de Jesus of Agreda (if I am spelling the right) made claims for in her -- Mystical City of God --. Criminy -- what a torturous read that is. The last time I attempted it, I got about as far as her quoting from yet another pseudo, fraudulent work -- but one which fraudulent nature was not discovered until a decade or so before her joining a convent. The hits just keep coming, people!

Nowhere else in the patristic record prior to and contemporary of Epiphanius is there talk of Assumption for Mary. An "Assumption" like occurrence for Jesus -- YES but in His instance termed Ascension, as is written. For Mary herself? No. No early Church Fathers speak of such a thing.

Speaking of spurious and pseudo, there was yet another late 5th-early 6th century work which included talk of bodily Assumption for Mary, which itself too was FRAUD from it's opening claim that it be of St.John the Theologian reminding me there of the Proto-Evangelium of James, in the hijack of otherwise good names to make spurious claims, telling "stories".

Like I made some mention towards earlier...at each and every point where there is contention among Protestants for aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma --- once one investigates beyond the usual RC apologetic, there does seem always-always-always fraudulent works involved somewhere which did indeed influence religious thought, and quite often there also exists previous direct refutations of the later developing (and still contentious) doctrines --- and if there not be that but silence instead --- there remains then a decided lack of mention of crucial considerations of things of such theological import and significance --- it is again and again impossible to believe the early Church would have not spoken of them had it known of them and believed in them. The oral tradition argumentative flung out to explain absences of evidence only flies so far...

They sure turned everything else this way and that in discussions. But Mary being Assumed bodily -- and nobody says a word for about as long a time since the first English settlers arrived at what they would call Jamestown? That's a long time for nothing but a wee bit of scattered conjecture, and most of that very late --- until in the 5th century talk of it seems to be everywhere, suddenly all at once. Hmm...what happened in the 4th century which opened the door -- could it be -- insisting upon calling "Mary" "Mother of God" perhaps?

Correlation is not causation, of course. Let us not assume that it be so just when it is convenient paddle of sorts to row against the tide of earliest long centuries of silence as to precise and theologically significant claims --such as bodily Assumption, and here more recently "Immaculate Conception".

If Mary had been taken up into bodily into heaven -- and the Church actually believe it even as a possibility (that did not introduce theological problems they would otherwise prefer to avoid -- like opening the door back open to form of polytheism) then why would Cyril of Alexandria not have included that in argument for calling Mary "Mother of God"? Why would Anthanasius have not included mention? Oh, woops! That could have complicated his own efforts in establishing concepts towards the Trinity -- three Persons -- one "substance", one "essence".

And along comes Mary dop-du-wah???

Say hello to the now ultra-chaste reincarnation of Inanna, Astarte, Ishtar, Isis, all the same goddess, all also Queen of Heaven. All of these sort of considerations, in the end resulting in your claim that the OP be refuted,

Thus the authority of the names of St. John, of Melito, of Athanasius, of Eusebius, of Augustine, of Jerome was obtained for the belief by a series of forgeries readily accepted because in accordance with the sentiment of the day, and the Gnostic legend was attributed to orthodox writers who did not entertain it. But this was not all, for there is the clearest evidence (1) that no one within the church taught it for six centuries, and (2) that those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by pope Gelasius as heretical.

possibly refuted only in the very last portion of the last sentence as to two popes having actually either signed or again later directly upheld the decree.

And if proving Webster wrong in that particular sense, IF that -- then only by the most obscure link which I myself brought to this thread BEFORE you did.

Ha. You got nothin'. Or if anything much, not nearly enough for the rest of the major problems still remain, regardless, and the rest of the apologetics world that discusses the Decretum (from BOTH sides of the debate) do not include contemplation the decree itself was itself but a forgery.

Hoo-boy -- but what a can of worms that opens.

They are crawling all over the place, onto somebody who-knows-who having elevated the bishop of Rome over the two other Apostolic Sees (which can be seen as fraudulent in and of itself -- in the claim having originated from "Rome" as it were, and the condition not recognizable in evidence in documents which Rome did not singularly possess --meaning they couldn't jimy around and forge them or change wording without risking getting caught because there were copies of proceedings from previous Councils extant in other bishoprics) to the contents of the forgery itself having been accepted by Rome as 'kosher' for how long? affecting there, how much theological development which can now be seen to have included frauds as part of basis for the "papacy" of Rome, the one bishop over all others idea being a mistake all along, but one which was leveraged and manufactured over centuries time...

The next comment which you made on this thread was just so much more smoke to bookend things...making this complex issue of just Marionism alone even more difficult to focus upon.

First -- in the comment to which to I give reply here, had you not pointed towards two previous comments (#2 and #52, the first a mess, the second not much of anything) as if those needing rebuttal?

Then -- in comment following this to which I reply you trot in Scott Hahn to engage in a bit of assigning of motivations as to why Protestants are gun-shy about Marionism in general, with every Roman Catholic that does indulge themselves in that sort of thing on these pages needing to fully ignore the more pointed criticisms and reasons actually supplied in the first person by "Protestants" as to their motivations.

Smokescreen CITY. I'm here to make sure that sort of thing does not go unchallenged.

I *think* I just blew some of that smoke away, although I fully expect denials, along with complaints I pinged certain persons -- even though those persons were pinged to the same reply to which I am giving reply.