And yet no Catholic...
So Catholics are evil for holding fast to the traditions handed down by the Apostles, some of which aren't mentioned explicitly in the Bible, yet it's OK for Protestants to hold to Luther's tradition of Sola Scriptura, which isn't mentioned explicitly (or implicitly) in the Bible.
Can you explain this, or are we supposed to just ignore this contradiction?
,,,can show any source for the belief in the assumption of Mary or bowing to idols or even that the traditions they claim are the same traditions the apostles were talking about.
A tradition usually refers to something that isn't written down, but is passed down, generation to generation.
tra·di·tionSt. Paul is recorded in the Bible as instructing his followers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
trəˈdiSH(ə)n/
noun1. the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
+++
Regardless, the earliest written records of the Assumption of Mary date from the sixth century.
Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin MaryAccording to the old (1917)Catholic Encyclopedia:"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..."
Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),in JUR,III:306
"As the most glorious Mother of Christ,our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."
Modestus of Jerusalem,Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae(PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634) from Munificentis simus Deus
"It was fitting ... that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ... should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God."
Theoteknos of Livias,Homily on the Assumption(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,57
According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). In Egypt and Arabia, however, it was kept in January, and since the monks of Gaul adopted many usages from the Egyptian monks (Baeumer, Brevier, 163), we find this feast in Gaul in the sixth century, in January [mediante mense undecimo (Greg. Turon., De gloria mart., I, ix)]. The Gallican Liturgy has it on the 18th of January, under the title: Depositio, Assumptio, or Festivitas S. Mariae (cf. the notes of Mabillon on the Gallican Liturgy, P.L., LXXII, 180). This custom was kept up in the Gallican Church to the time of the introduction of the Roman rite. In the Greek Church, it seems, some kept this feast in January, with the monks of Egypt; others in August, with those of Palestine; wherefore the Emperor Maurice (d. 602), if the account of the "Liber Pontificalis" (II, 508) be correct, set the feast for the Greek Empire on 15 August+++
There is no record of Luther's tradition of Sola Scriptura in the early Fathers, or anywhere else, as far as I know, prior to Luther (A.D. 1517)
Prove it. Prove that what the Catholic Church today calls tradition is the same as what the apostles were talking about.
>>yet it's OK for Protestants to hold to Luther's tradition of Sola Scriptura, which isn't mentioned explicitly (or implicitly) in the Bible.<<
I keep asking Catholics to produce proof outside of scripture that the beliefs they hold are what the apostles taught. To date I have been given none. Catholics can't even prove that what they call tradition is the same as what the apostles called tradition. So I am left with scripture alone as proof of what the apostles taught.
>>St. Paul is recorded in the Bible as instructing his followers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."<<
Once again, prove they are the same traditions.
>>Regardless, the earliest written records of the Assumption of Mary date from the sixth century.<<
See here
>>"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones...[Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),in JUR,III:306]<<
Oh that's rich!!! Now we not only have Jesus returning to earth one more time but we have a guy writing in the 6th century with absolutely no attribution to earlier proof. There is also the claim that the apostles were there yet they gave no mention of such a momentous occasion in any of their writings. Nor did any other writers from the time. In fact, she was so inconsequential to the people of the time no one kept track of where she spent her last days nor was she even mentioned in any writings for 300+ years after Pentecost. Talk about digging a hole.
>>There is no record of Luther's tradition of Sola Scriptura in the early Fathers, or anywhere else, as far as I know, prior to Luther<<
Cyril of Alexandria (376 – 444 AKA prior to Luther)
Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures....In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith….For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith….This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts....Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture....receive not the witness of man. [A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), "The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17.]
Cyril (376 – 444)
must be proven by Scripture.
but that tradition must be validated by the written Scriptures.
Irenaeus (AD 130-202 AKA prior to Luther) We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874)