“As Christ was sinless, so Mary was;”
“As the Lord remained a virgin, so also Mary;”
“As the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;”
Wow. They actually believe that?
Merely the tip of the iceberg on this issue.
Certainly, and they have to as faithful RCs. And more, and with the assurance of the veracity of such teachings resting upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
Thus as asserted by the founder of sophist "Catholic Answers,"
"...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275)
And Ratzinger stated,
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative. What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
How then can Rome rationalize making belief in the Assumption a binding doctrine? Why, by claiming Rome can "remember" what history forgot:"
But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
But which is mere sophistry, for it changes an event that has no historical warrant for belief into a teaching that too hard to understand, but which is not the case here, and in fact Caths point to the record of bodily assumptions in Scripture as understandable support for the alleged assumption of Mary.
I did, when I was a catholic. Since I am an ex catholic, I don’t accept it anymore.
Yup.