I didn't say it had to be in scripture. I said it had to be substantiated that they taught it. I have given Catholics every opportunity to show a source showing the apostles taught that. It's Catholics that say scripture is not the only source. So, if there is some other source to prove the apostles taught the assumption of Mary let's see it. If the doctrine is simply built on something else admit it and show us the source.
>>So, what we do have, are sources that show the idea of the Assumption was passed down from the generation to generation and could only have been done so if it was believed widely in the Church.<<
So produce your "sources". Keep in mind that it's still incumbent to show it originated with the apostles and that they taught it.
>>So, one day after a couple of Protestant anti-Catholics tell me it’s a-okay for Protestants to not agree on “disputable” items (using sola scriptura) you’re now claiming the Assumption represents a “different gospel” and people who believe it are accursed?<<
Show me where any "Protestant" didn't use scripture to base their belief on. If you want to discuss what scripture teaches which is what Protestants do have at it. The assumption of Mary is a major dogma of the Catholic Church requiring Catholics to believe it or be anathema. “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus).
Let's look at some facts about the dogma of the assumption. [source http://www.justforcatholics.org/assumption.htm]
Not Taught in Scripture
Catholic authors readily admit that the Assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture. In the biblical narrative, Mary is last mentioned in Acts 1 where she is found praying with the other disciples before Pentecost. After that, the Bible is silent about her life and death.
Naturally Catholic writers refer to various scriptures to demonstrate the possibility of this doctrine, and that it is was ‘fitting’ that Mary should be assumed to heaven. These efforts fall short of biblical proof.
Not Taught by the Church Fathers
The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries:
First Taught by Heretics
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).
The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. It is ironic that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century.
So you have a belief that is demanded of Catholics that has a spurious source at best. A belief that can't even be sourced beyond the 6th century and a belief that by all accounts traces back to heretics.
“It’s Catholics that say scripture is not the only source.”
Scripture says that. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So, if there is some other source to prove the apostles taught the assumption of Mary let’s see it.”
If you want to research it, go ahead. The best compilation of sources are in French.
“If the doctrine is simply built on something else admit it and show us the source.”
I don’t know what you’re saying there.
“So produce your “sources”.”
Research your self.
“Keep in mind that it’s still incumbent to show it originated with the apostles and that they taught it.”
Actually, no. Nothing is “still incumbent to show”. You want to know about it? Research it yourself.
“Show me where any “Protestant” didn’t use scripture to base their belief on.”
Sola scriptura appears no where in the Bible. Thus, no Protestant could ever base sola scriptura on scripture. The same goes for sola fide. Sola fide appears no where in scripture as believed by Protestants. James 2:24 shows Protestants are wrong.
“If you want to discuss what scripture teaches which is what Protestants do have at it.”
Clearly that’s NOT Protestants have.
“The assumption of Mary is a major dogma of the Catholic Church...”
It is? According to what scale?
“requiring Catholics to believe it or be anathema.”
Well, the actual punishment is this:
“45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”
“fallen away” does not strike me as the same thing as “anathema”. Fallen away is passive. An anathema is not.
I’ve seen Mizzi’s site many times and he clearly is intellectually dishonest in his approach. Does Mizzi even mention the Euthymiaca Historia? No, of course not. Don’t know what it is? Look it up.