I don't have to prove the apostles did not teach the assumption of Mary. I don't believe she was. There is nothing in scripture that says I need to believe that to be part of the ekklesia of Christ. The Catholic Church says Catholics must believe that. It is therefore the responsibility of the Catholic Church to show the apostles taught that the assumption of Mary is necessary.
>>No. You, however, must prove that there is a verse that shows Matthew wrote an inspired book because you believe in sola scriptura.<
Why do I need to prove that? Nothing in Matthew is contradicted in any of the other books. If you can show where Matthew contradicts any of the other writers let me know and we can discuss it. Would you do the same for let's say the book of Tobit?
>>Whoever wrote the article either made a typographical error or made the same logical error many Protestants do. I, and others here at FR, have pointed out before that the oCE is good, but not perfect.<<
So show where the Catholic Church refutes what is in it.
>>like Mormons and Muslims also have a sola scriptura belief<<
Mormans and Muslims have a sola scriptura belief? Seriously?
“I don’t have to prove the apostles did not teach the assumption of Mary.”
Sure you do. Since orthodox Christians before Protestantism reared its ugly heretical head believed it, yes, you do.
“I don’t believe she was.”
What you believe on the matter isn’t the issue.
“There is nothing in scripture that says I need to believe that to be part of the ekklesia of Christ.”
There’s nothing in the Bible about sola scriptura yet you believe that.
“The Catholic Church says Catholics must believe that. It is therefore the responsibility of the Catholic Church to show the apostles taught that the assumption of Mary is necessary.”
Not using sola scriptura - that’s a Protestant heresy.
“Why do I need to prove that? Nothing in Matthew is contradicted in any of the other books.”
Nothing in scripture contradicts the assumption of Mary either. Also, YOU could write a book that is not contradicted by scripture. Does that mean it is inspired?
“If you can show where Matthew contradicts any of the other writers let me know and we can discuss it.”
So, you will fail - as expected of course - to show that Matthew wrote an inspired gospel. Thus, sola scriptura logically falls apart.
“Would you do the same for let’s say the book of Tobit?”
Do what?
“So show where the Catholic Church refutes what is in it.”
Read up on the subject. And why would the Church even notice one publication in America from 1909?
“Mormans and Muslims have a sola scriptura belief? Seriously?”
Much as Protestants profess - with the usual caveat that that shifts to completely subjective selectivity whenever they feel like. Protestants act the same way. Ask any Protestant to show you even one verse that says Matthew ever wrote an inspired gospel and suddenly he will run to any other issue they can thrown in the conversation.