=============================================================
Your assertion there CynicalBear is badly confusing two entirely different things (like apples and oranges).
In order to understand that text you quoted from Paul's letter to the Galatians, you have to know precisely (not vaguely and fuzzily) what the keyword "gospel" in that text truly means.
The "gospel" ("good news") is the story of how Jesus Christ, the "Son of God", out of infinite love, took on a human nature and eventually was crucified and died in order to provide us fallen and sinful human beings with the opportunity for forgiveness of our sins, redemption/salvation, and spending eternity with God in heaven as His "children". Catholics believe and teach that, Protestants believe and teach that, and the Orthodox believe and teach that plain definition of "the gospel". (Do a search and look it up to see that.)
The "Assumption of Mary", on the other hand, is an account of the belief held by Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians, and some Protestant Christians, of how Mary was taken (body and soul) at the end of her life into the glory of God in heaven. It is not a "different gospel". It is not a version of the "gospel" at all, and anyone who tries to pretend that it is is deceiving you. Rather, it is an account of the end of the earthly life and the reward of the Mother of Jesus Christ.
They are obviously two completely different and distinct things, and anyone who tries to tell you they mean the same thing or are "conflicting versions of the gospel" is bearing false witness, and is knowingly or unknowingly working for the father of all lies.
There are many accounts of events in the Bible itself that are not a description of the "gospel", but merely of various events. For example, Paul himself mentions such things as how at various times he was beaten with whips, beaten with rods, stoned, and suffered all kinds of other hardships (see 2 Corinthians 11:24-27, Acts 14:19). Those depictions are (of course) not a description of "the gospel", but just of brutal events in the life of the Apostle Paul. (The gospel is about Jesus Christ, and what He has done for us.)
Likewise, the "Assumption of Mary" is a depiction of one event in the life of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, passed down through the Tradition of God's Church. While that was good news, it is not what would be called a "gospel" by any stretch of any sane imagination, and the Catholic Church does not teach that that event in Mary's life is "the gospel", and anyone who tells you otherwise is peddling a falsehood.
And, furthermore, anyone who claims that if something is not in the Bible, that somehow proves it didn't happen, is lying, and not only that, they are calling the Bible a liar, because the Bible plainly says the Jesus did many other things that were not written:
All of the Apostles died, but most of their deaths are not recorded in the Bible, but, rather, are passed down by the Tradition of God's Church.✝============================================================✝
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25✝============================================================✝
The Tradition of the Church founded by Jesus Christ started long before the first word of the New Testament was written down. I urge you and anyone else reading this post to watch this video when you get some time, to get a better understanding of the interplay of the written Word of God with the Tradition of God's Church:
Galatians 1:7 that is not another, except there be certain who are troubling you, and wishing to pervert the good news of the Christ;
So we need to find out what that "pervert the good news of Christ" means. We go on to verse 10;
Galatians 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant (doulos) of Christ.
There we begin to see what he is talking about. Pleasing and looking for approval of people and being a servant to them instead of Christ alone. Look at the word "servant". The Greek word used there is "doulos". Follow that through and we find the word "dulia". Paul said "dulia" was due Christ and not to any other. We owe "dulia" to Christ alone and not to Mary. Think I"m off on that translation? Thomas Aquinas spoke of it when he said;
"Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the Lordship of God. [Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, A.D. 1270]
Now Catholics have elevated Mary into a position not taught by the apostles. A position where they claim she is to be given that "dulia" rather than Christ as Paul taught calling it "another gospel". The gospel (good news) includes the teaching that we owe servitude (dulia) to Christ and NOT to Mary. Catholic teaching of servitude (dulia) to Mary is preaching "another gospel". Seeking the approval of man (Mary) rather than the approval of God is teaching "another gospel".
We could also go into the Greek word latreia and find that it means service or servitude. Catholics don't give servitude (latreia) to Mary you say?
Order of Friar Servants of Mary [http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dqosm.html]
Servants of Mary (Order of Servites) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09750a.htm]
Consecration to Mary by Catholics from one of their prayers to Mary.
"O Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth, and tender Mother of men, in accordance with Thy ardent wish made known at Fatima, I consecrate to Thy Immaculate Heart myself, my brethren, my country and the whole human race."
Catholics preach another gospel.
Now, please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and servitude (dulia) to her.
And, furthermore, anyone who claims that if something is not in the Bible, that somehow proves it didn't happen, is lying, and not only that, they are calling the Bible a liar, because the Bible plainly says the Jesus did many other things that were not written:
✝============================================================✝ But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25 ✝============================================================✝
If you will read this verse carefully you will see that the other things Jesus did were not written down nor were they intended to be written down.
Catholics take this verse to be a carte blanche card...they can claim any teaching they want by using this verse...."oh, just because it's not in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen or that we shouldn't adhere to it." This mindset has been used to give us such false teachings as Mary being sinless, remaining a virgin, indulgences, etc.
If we use catholic thinking on this then we cannot say no to Mormonism. After all, how do we know Jesus didn't take a detour to North America? Now, I don't believe in the Mormon claims for one second.
I merely use them as an example of what happens when we start taking verses out of context or reading something into a verse that's not there as catholics do with this verse.
Did Jesus do a bunch of stuff we don't have record of? Of course He did. He ate, slept, worked as a carpenter, interacted with His brothers and sisters, and a whole bunch of other stuff. We don't have a detailed daily diary of what He did. Nor do we need one.
What we have in the Bible is the record that God intended us to have. We have all we need to know about how to be saved...how to have a relationship with Christ and how to live the Christian life. We have the consequences of what happens if one rejects Christ. We have all we need to know regarding God,how to grow in God and how to serve Him.
There isn't any new revelation as claimed by catholicism.