(And yeah I get the irony of posting that on the same thread that claims to prove Popes taught differently re Mary before.)
That's good.
The OP is false, as has already been demonstrated in the first 200 posts of this thread.
Which ones, because I found lots of posts maligning non-Catholics, attempting to smear non-Catholics through guilt by association, defending tradition, posting inane images, but precious few who even attempted to discuss the topic of the article, much less demonstrate it to be false.
I'll reread any you provide to support your contention to see what I missed.
I have pinged some of the Catholics on this thread so they may know there indeed is a refutation to the OP, and indeed if I may say so now however briefly, it is for reasons as this (that again, it's demonstrated a Protestant objection to Catholic dogma is at least not as airtight as it seems) that there are some Catholics (myself chief among them) who express disdain, and outright frustration at such tiresome displays as this. So while those among you are technically correct when you say "if all you have are silly pictures or tantrums in retort, you have nothing", the same goes both ways, and also, from my perspective as a Catholic also, it's entirely understandable. For indeed, how many times do we Catholics need to demonstrate that these "new" objections of Protestants are at the very least, debatable themselves, if not an outright foolish waste of time?
Now, to answer you metmom, the posts I was referring to were #2 by Steelfish and #52 by ronnietherocket. The latter to which still no one has offered a reply. But I will say this, with all due respect to those two gentlemen (or ladies? sorry I don't know) their posts don't address all the points in the OP, so it can be reasonably said I "misspoke" when I said "The OP is false, as has already been demonstrated in the first 200 posts".
To be clear, Steelfish and ronnietherocket raise some good points in their posts, and I think they should be taken in consideration. But I'm not going to argue their posts "demonstrate" the "OP is false".
For that, I will offer this. Briefly, that work addresses virtually all the points raised by Webster specifically in the section titled "Objections to the Assumption" there. I will attempt to summarize further:
Point 1. If Protestants use the " Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis" to show the " Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito" as false, they have a problem. This is because the same Decretal contains a list of Canonical Books, some of which Protestants reject, namely the book of Tobit and the two books of Maccabees. So if Protestants here (or anywhere) accept the Decretal of Pope Gelasius as a true document of history, then they are forced to admit that as early as the 5th century the Church (Christian) accepted those books as Canonical, and therefore the Protestants of the "Reformation" erred when they removed them from the Bible.
Point 2. The same Decretal is not as accepted as Webster implies at least not in totality. See here. The main point of that brief commentary is that the first and second sections of the Decretal (which contain the list of canonical books) are most likely truly promulgated by Pope Gelasius, but the remaining sections are spurious. I am confident the sources Webster then goes on to claim support the entire Decretal, most likely agree with this (that the list of canonical books are genuine, but the remainder of the Decretal is spurious).
Point 3. Even if the entirety of the Papal Decretal is genuine, it does not do what Webster claims, or "Condemn the teaching of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary". All it does is outlaw the reading/propigation of a particular apocryphal work that also describes (admittedly in great detail) the Assumption of Mary. But this does not mean that the belief itself was condemned! It only means that particular work that mentions it was condemned (again, if that list isn't spurious which is debatable). See the link I posted earlier for more on this
Point 4. Earlier, Webster quotes from "Mariology" (volume 2) "An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144)." and "The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150)."
This is quote mining, to be blunt (I can't think of a better term right now). For as it's pointed out, "Juniper Carol does not state that. Fr. Burghardt, who wrote the articles on the western and eastern Fathers, does not use (sic) the words "complete fabrication" or even "fabrication." What he says is although they are "valueless" as strict history, they are nonetheless "significant," and "priceless" both historically and theologically. These Transitus accounts reveal a genuine Christian insight that it was not fitting that the body of Mary should see corruption. This argument is the same made on theological lines by the Fathers, Catholic theologians, and Pius XII in his definition of the Assumption.
That is, Fr. Burghardt is not saying the texts are completely valueless, rather as a source of strict history (such as whether or not she was assumed before death or after), they are not to be relied. But as a source of an indication of the Tradition extant at the time, they are "priceless". Indeed, they show, even if "apocryphal" that Christians at that time period had a problem to face, which was: "We know Mary isn't with us bodily anymore, but we also know her grave was empty, and that no relics exist of her. So what happened to her body?" Thus they, like Pius the XIIth, concluded (reasonably) that she must have been Assumed into Heaven.
That's what Burghhardt is saying. Not that the text is valueless as a source of any knowledge, but that it can't be determined from that text (or any early text) how precisely the Assumption took place. To claim otherwise, as Webster does, is again, selectively quote mining/taking the words of Carol/Burghhardt out of context. Indeed, if anyone even just "googles" "Mariology - Juniper Carol" one can see he himself has no problem (and indeed vigorously supports the dogma of the Assumption, IN that very work! So it's absolutely preposterous to claim that somehow Fr. Carol somehow doubts the dogma. See here: Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption, from the exact same work ("Mariology") edited by Juniper Carol.
Now I'm sure some in the list I have pinged will find some error on my part to harp on (instead of reading the sources I've provided with an objective desire for truth) OR, will find some other "reason" to disagree with what was quoted, to "prove" the original post by William Webster posted by Gamecock. If that's the case, fine. I don't see how that's possible given what I've posted now, but I don't have time to go 9 rounds if indeed someone does wish to take things that far. Perhaps another Catholic will take the mantle from here, or really, I would encourage this thread to die the death its predestined to take, which is (as I said before) yet another anti-Catholic bash fest, signifying nothing.