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.
That's not quite it. If something is neither proved nor disproved (ruled out) by the Bible, we can credit ancient belief and practice of the Church. That's not exactly "enough people." It's not a numerical thing, a vote. It's history, using the ordinary rules of historic investigation, and weighing the antiquity, the authority and the credibility of the various sources of evidence. You may underestimate how conservative andwha sticklers for details the ancient churches were. Homousios vs homoiousios and so forth. If the doctrine of the Assumption had been heretical, I think the introduction of liturgical celebrations of the same would have caused rioting and schisms on three continents.
It's important that our evaluation of such sources take fully into account the profound conservatism of the local Churches (by which I mean, in the Catholic sense of the term, Dioceses) involved. And their extreme disinclination to let sister local Churches deviate by one iota from what they had received from the APostles.
Did you read the article I referenced?
(I copied it from the cache version and then zoomed it up in size, because that small print bothers my eyes. I wish I had a more legible version to offer you.)
Chesterton reminds me again that before examining your reasoning process, examine the presuppositions which underlie your reasoning process. To be too brief (egad, it's almost 6 pm) I would say the classic Protestant assumption is that the Scriptures gave rise to the Church rather than t'other way around. In some form or another, it is the background of almost every argument here in the FR Religion Forum.
This thread may hit 2,000 but it'll do so without me. I've got to cram in some BBQ chicken thighs and then I'm outta here!
Have an excellent evening. Beers all around when we hit 2,000 -- have one for me, OK?