[rollo tomasi]

"So it wasn't a matter of it's lying dormant at all."

45 and 47 says not so, in fact many RCCers questioned the "Assumption" until some guy, who won a political popularity contest, said otherwise. Now you are hell-bound for questioning implications in which previous Catholics were free to do. Pretty darn serious to be lying dormant for 1900 years.

Funny about 47, after God gets done dishing out some wrath, Peter and Paul get their cracks. Which one packs a more powerful punch? After 2000 years will this be the next "revealed" doctrine?

"I hope this is clear about the process and about how we think (or, at least, how Pius XII thought) about the exercise of "infallibility."

No, instead of an easy yoke, people get evolving implications based on a lack of primary sources, oral tradition, revelations from early Church Fathers, and gnostic literature. Makes people yearn the theopneustos Word, the Cross, and Resurrection for salvation, at least It is consistent (Considering the looseness of past Popes).

[Mad Dawg]

You're really going to make me read the whole thing carefully, aren't you. Is there no limit to your cruelty?

:-)

45 and 47 says not so, in fact many RCCers questioned the "Assumption" until some guy, who won a political popularity contest, said otherwise. Now you are hell-bound for questioning implications in which previous Catholics were free to do. Pretty darn serious to be lying dormant for 1900 years....

Could you rephrase without the=, I don't know what to call it, extremism?

For example, "hell-bound" seems a little over the top. We don't think or teach that someone with what you might call functionally invincible ignorance is going to hell just for not thinking Mary was not assumed. The catechism seems pretty clear on that.

Somebody who was brought up Catholic and knows what we teach and, without formally renouncing his being Catholic, presents himself as speaking for the Church AND who teaches Mary was not assumed ... now, THAT boy is in trouble.