You are here again guilty (right down to the bone) of what you are accusing others of.
You first posted the demand "document or retract" addressed to comment #296 with yourself having highlighted;
and yourself remarking in reply to that portion;
Guess what? The assertion which you said was 'hogwash' was established to be true in comment #377. Rome says that only itself, which itself regards as "The Church™, can interpret Scripture. Well, duh, that's not exactly news around here, is it? Yet you had said to RnMomof7, having mentioned that factual info (as for what the RCC claims as it's own prerogative) that it was "hogwash".
Elsie later added (for good measure?), if I understood him well enough, as he was engaging in a bit of play on words in regards to the Assumption of Mary, as a thing which is assumed, rather than is in any way documented factually, such as eye witness account, etc.
In fact, for many centuries it was acknowledged within the Church that the precise details of her death were not known, including if she was bodily "assumed" into heaven, or not.
Shall I ping (by which I mean bring citation from) Epiphanius?
There is really no need, as the RCC otherwise admits that there is no actual proof (no documented "fact" as it were) of such a thing as the Assumption of Mary having occurred.
Should we be forced to bring evidence (from RCC sources) for admission of that?
What then, if someone here were to do so?
Would YOU begin to retract your own comments?
Time and again those are proven wrong -- but there is rarely any acknowledgement forthcoming --- yet you demand retractions from others?
How small can you be?
Go back and retract the "hogwash" comment, and while you are at it (to save everyone a lot of time and trouble) just go ahead and admit there is no real and actual evidence for 'Mary' having been bodily Assumed into heaven.
Do you have enough integrity to do so --- you know -- to do as you demand others to do?
If so -- when will we here on FR begin to see much in the way of visible traces for it?
In CONTEXT this was demonstrated to be false (prots won't admit it due to low reading comprehension, but it is still false). If you read from I believe it is paragraph 80 -94 (or 98 I don't have my CCC here in front of me)You will see that it is referring to defining dogma.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.