The Assumption of Mary is not in the Scriptures. Neither is it ruled out in the Scriptures. (After all, far lesser than she were taken bodily up to heaven. The Assumption of Elijah comes to mind.) It is in the spelled-with-a-capital-letter, big-T Tradition.
Nobody ever found, nor claimed to ind, nor so much as credited the possibility of finding, bodily remains of Mary. Not even relic-hunter Empress Helena, for whom such a coup would have been a matchless feather in her imperial cap. Not even all the Israeli Antiquities Authority people or their equivalent back in the day. Even during the centuries when people were quite gaga about relics. As the Pope Pius XII (1950) reasoned, “Finally, since the Church has never sought for bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin, nor exposed them for the veneration of the faithful, we have an argument which can be considered as 'practically a proof by sensory experience'" (AAS 42. 765-66).
The bottom line: although the Papal declaration of the Assumption as a dogma (Munificentissimus Deus) was not published until 1950, it had been first believed by the ancient Christian community (sensus fidelium), then celebrated liturgically, then supported by scholastic argument from Scripture, and lastly --- many centuries later--- formally defined as a dogma of the Faith.
That, by the way, is the normal course of doctrine: it is first anciently believed; then celebrated; then clarified by argument, then defined. And not the other way around.
This article supplies a more cohesive explaanation. Scroll half way down Assumption -- Page 7 (LINK) or here's the PDF version: ASSUMPTION -- Page 7 - 9 (LINK)--- It'll take you some time to digest, but if you really want to understand this bit o'popery --- perhaps for the purpose of blasting it more accurately, eh? --- there it is.
Enjoy, Brother Bear!
So to use catholic logic, because we can't prove or disprove something not in the Bible, but if enough people believe it it's accepted.
Using the catholic premise, who is to say the mormon's aren't correct in saying Jesus visited the North American continent? We can't prove it or disprove it outside of the Bible now can we? for clarity...i reject ALL mormon teaching as false.
This is the problem with catholicism's man-made non biblical tradition. Anything is up for grabs if enough believe it.
Pretty soon, with enough support, the catholic church will be supporting homosexual marriage as being discussed in the current synod. In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.[20][21]
By 1998 it was doubtful the Vatican was going to consider new Marian dogmas. The papal spokesman stated "This is not under study by the Holy Father nor by any Vatican congregation or commission".[21] A leading Mariologist stated the petition was "theologically inadequate, historically a mistake, pastorally imprudent and ecumenically unacceptable".[22] Pope John Paul II cautioned against "all false exaggeration",[23] his teaching and devotion to Mary has strictly been "exalting Mary as the first among believers but concentrating all faith on the Triune God and giving primacy to Christ."[22] When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that,
"the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way." [24]
But give it time and the opinions will push the pope to declare this as dogma....btw it would be another heresy teaching of the catholic cult regarding Mary and her alledged role in our salvation.
The bottom line: although the Papal declaration of the Assumption as a dogma (Munificentissimus Deus) was not published until 1950, it had been first believed by the ancient Christian community (sensus fidelium), then celebrated liturgically, then supported by scholastic argument from Scripture, and lastly --- many centuries later--- formally defined as a dogma of the Faith.
STOP! You just argued above that the Bible doesn't address the issue of Mary's alledged assumption, yet in this paragraph you claim scriptural support??
That, by the way, is the normal course of doctrine: it is first anciently believed; then celebrated; then clarified by argument, then defined. And not the other way around.
NO! Christian doctrine was established by the writers of the NT by the end of the 1st century.
You would be correct in saying catholic doctrine has evolved over the years.
The Catholic Church has declared the assumption is something its members must believe. That makes what they teach "another gospel". Paul taught that anyone teaching something they didn't teach would be accursed by God. If you are really teaching that in a class you had better know it's something the apostles taught. Please don't risk an eternity in hell.
Nobody ever found, nor claimed to ind, nor so much as credited the possibility of finding, bodily remains of Mary.
Nobody ever found D.B. Coopers remains.
Let us assume he was assumtuated!