[OLD REGGIE]

Why not link us to the whole "debate" while you are at it?

I responded specifically to your statement regarding the RCC teachings concerning Mary.

If I read you correctly, it is your contention that the RCC always believed in the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption.

Assuming you accept the validity of the Council of Nicaea, and the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, were not yet RCC accepted doctrines, your argument is invalid.

Frankly, I expected you to argue it wasn't a valid council because the "Pope" wasn't there. (Though there was no such thing as a "Pope" at that time, nor was there a "Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.)

My questions to you are, when did the RCC (through Church Council or "Infallible" Pronouncement) codify the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption and why was it permissable for many Early Church Fathers to disagree with these positions if the answer was known "from the beginning"?

[RobbyS]

Assuming you accept the validity of the Council of Nicaea, and the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, were not yet RCC accepted doctrines, your argument is invalid What was the Council of Nicaea ABOUT? The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption: where does the Council address these issues, have they even emerged? The purpose of the Council was to judge the validity of the doctrines of Arius by measuring it against past doctrine. Some people would say that they ruled wrongly: that Arius was closer to the Truth. He certainly makes a credible argument based on Scripture and the writings of earlier divines. Would you say that Peter and Paul taught definitively the Christological formula of the Council?

Regarding the antiquity of the Marian doctrines we must be cautious. White mentions J.N.D. Kelly, his Early Christian Doctines, I refer you to his chapter 18. I would accept that the cult of the Virgin was on the "fringe" of the Church in the late first and second centuries and overshadowed by the cult of the martyrs but is evidenced in certain aprocrypal words, especially the Proto gospel of James.By the 4th Century we have a very different picture although not a modern one. If you want to know my views on the development of doctrine,and the role of the papacy, I suggest you do read Newman

Regarding the opinions of "fathers" at variance with later Church teaching, the question I ask you is whether you are willing to let ANY authority decide between contending positions and THEN and ONLY THEN rule out other opinions, or do you insist on evaluating the fact situation and rendering a judgement yourself?