Just because people disagree with some of the dogma of the Catholic Church does not make them anti-Catholic, but just non-Catholic. I don’t accept extra-Bilbical dogmas created by any church. If Immaculate Conception of Mary or Mary’s Assumption into heaven were essential beliefs, they would have been included in the Bible and not added to the official dogma in the 1850’s. I don’t understand how core beliefs can be a moving target.
I am not very familiar with the Biblical basis for the Assumption. However, there is absolutely no question in my mind that the Immaculate Conception is clearly spelled out in the Bible.
The fact that the term is not there doesn’t make a bit of difference, the term Trinity isn’t there either.
Why not?
If Immaculate Conception of Mary or Mary’s Assumption into heaven were essential beliefs, they would have been included in the Bible and not added to the official dogma in the 1850’s.
How does that follow? Using that reasoning, if the Gospel were an essential dogma, then it would been given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
I don’t understand how core beliefs can be a moving target.
Do you understand how the Church can *grow* in its understanding of its core beliefs? I recommend Newman's An Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
-A8
Where does the Bible say it contains all the essential beliefs?
Where did Christ ever tell anyone to write down a single word?
How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon?
Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’?