“It’s Catholics that say scripture is not the only source.”
Scripture says that. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So, if there is some other source to prove the apostles taught the assumption of Mary let’s see it.”
If you want to research it, go ahead. The best compilation of sources are in French.
“If the doctrine is simply built on something else admit it and show us the source.”
I don’t know what you’re saying there.
“So produce your “sources”.”
Research your self.
“Keep in mind that it’s still incumbent to show it originated with the apostles and that they taught it.”
Actually, no. Nothing is “still incumbent to show”. You want to know about it? Research it yourself.
“Show me where any “Protestant” didn’t use scripture to base their belief on.”
Sola scriptura appears no where in the Bible. Thus, no Protestant could ever base sola scriptura on scripture. The same goes for sola fide. Sola fide appears no where in scripture as believed by Protestants. James 2:24 shows Protestants are wrong.
“If you want to discuss what scripture teaches which is what Protestants do have at it.”
Clearly that’s NOT Protestants have.
“The assumption of Mary is a major dogma of the Catholic Church...”
It is? According to what scale?
“requiring Catholics to believe it or be anathema.”
Well, the actual punishment is this:
“45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”
“fallen away” does not strike me as the same thing as “anathema”. Fallen away is passive. An anathema is not.
I’ve seen Mizzi’s site many times and he clearly is intellectually dishonest in his approach. Does Mizzi even mention the Euthymiaca Historia? No, of course not. Don’t know what it is? Look it up.
Evidently you have nothing to refute the information in my last post to you. Sola Scriptura is not the discussion here. I wasn't holding you to Sola Scriptura. The problem for you was that you couldn't produce any other source for the apostles teaching of the assumption of Mary. The best you seem to be able to do is point to "A narrative known as the Euthymiaca Historia (written probably by Cyril of Scythopolis in the 5th century).
Catholics need to simply admit that most of their beliefs rest in supposition and conjecture and as I showed in my last post to you on writings of heretics and questionable authorship. Read this again.
The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century.
So two popes condemned the source for information on the assumption yet the Catholic Church calls it a dogma that must be believed. Basing ones eternal destiny on information from an organization like that makes no sense.
Well, it was the third use of papal infallibility.
How does a catholic not know this??
No, the person making the claim has the responsibility to back it up.
If he or she doesn't then the claim can be summarily dismissed as a fabrication or wishful thinking. It's not *It's true because I said so and you have to prove me wrong.*
It needs to be, *It's true and here are the proofs* can you show me they're wrong?*
Sending some one off on a fools errand demonstrates that the person making the claim has nothing on which to base it.