Replies

[paladinan]
Do you see my point? I think you misunderstand how the Magisterium works, friend. The charism of infallibility protects the Church from teaching (as formal dogma, binding on all the faithful under pain of heresy/sin) anything that's FALSE [...]

[eagleone]
Wrong!

"Wrong"?! Is this your mere opinion, or can you prove that assertion?

Please see Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, indulgences, for starters. There is zero scriptural support for either of these.

That's quite the eclectic collection! You are aware of the fact that the first two are dogmas (i.e. infallible teaching of the Church), and the third is a discipline (albeit one which refers to the true dogma of Purgatory, and the true dogma that spiritual goods are shared through the Communion of Saints)?

But as to your point, let me ask: if, for the sake of argument, I grant your claim (which is not true, BTW) that there is no explicit proof for the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption in Scripture... how, exactly, would that "disprove" them? Scripture says nothing about the quadratic formula, either... but I assure you, it's still quite true! Only if someone holds to "sola Scriptura" (which is not only unproven, but logically absurd and unbiblical) would this be a problem. But you seem to think that even Catholics should "admit defeat" on these doctrines, simply because the explicit teachings aren't found on the face of the Sacred Text. Why?

Catholic apologists admit that for the immaculate conception.

You might want to check out Dr. Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, Steven Ray, and others who are more accomplished than the apologists you might have in mind. I assure you, they're quite familiar with the topic (I've heard and read them).

The rcc has used allegory to make these dogmas. A very dangerous way to interpret Scripture.

...and this is your mere opinion? Or can you point me to a Scripture which says this, clearly?

(By the way: your statement is incorrect; the Church didn't "make" the dogmas; She *defined* them, just as She "defined" the doctrine of the Trinity at the First Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D.)

Interesting that the pope has spoken ex cathedra a handful of times and the majority have been on Mary.

First of all: does the fact that it's "interesting" have any bearing on the discussion? Are you implying something? Using allegory, perhaps? :) (Sorry... just teasing!)

Second: you do know that the Magisterium is not limited to mere "ex cathedra" statements by the Holy Father, right? Those are rare, and are used only at greatest need (i.e. when there's a grave controversy about the Faith which the Holy Father needs to settle definitively). The dogmatic degrees of all the ecumenical councils (including Trent) are of equal weight to ex cathedra statements, you know.

But as to your point, let me ask: if, for the sake of argument, I grant your claim (which is not true, BTW) that there is no explicit proof for the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption in Scripture...

From the catholic encyclopedia online. It bills itself as the most authoritative source on catholicism. Also to clarify, I only said this about the immaculate conception. Though I do not find any support in Scripture for Mary being assumed. There is a lot of wishful thinking and couldn't it have happened reasoning in the rcc to support the assumption. The rcc is practicing eisogesis v exogesis.

Other catholic apologists have noted this as well.

Regarding the immaculate conception.....

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056