Sure, since you asked. The article conflates the condemnation of de transitu with condemnation of the doctrine of the Assumption. That's not the same thing; a book can contain some truth and still contain a great deal of error and be worthy of condemnation.
It's really a pretty straightforward error of fallacy of composition.
Besides, do you really think -- honestly, now -- that Catholics are so ignorant and stupid that they would dogmatize something in the 19th century that had been condemned as heresy in the sixth?
Then one has to decide what the truth is. So what is the determining factor in separating truth from lies?
It has to be more than *Whatever supports my theology is truth and whatever doesn't is false* and yet that's what it seems to boil down to.
Besides, do you really think -- honestly, now -- that Catholics are so ignorant and stupid that they would dogmatize something in the 19th century that had been condemned as heresy in the sixth?
It's not the laity who makes those decisions so no, I do not think it was done out of stupidity or ignorance.
But, yes, I can see if someone has an agenda that they could and would do that. Intentionally.
And this explains...
...what?
Yes.
Look at what they've done with the Last Supper!
Absolutely...The bible condemns calling your religious leaders father...It condemns many things your religion ignores...