[paladinan]
I don't have much time, but here's a reference to one of the earlier teachings on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, by St. John of Damascus (revered by both East and West, alike).
[CynicalBear]
From the 8th century??? How preposterous. Maybe you didn't understand the question. Here's my question again.
:) Your snark is really cute, by the way. And the three question marks make for a nice, emotive "flair" at the end of that sentence.
But yes, it's from the 8th century... and I explained some of my reasoning, already. And did you read Munificentissimus Deus? You don't mention it, here. More on that, in a moment.
We know that churches were off track already by 96AD as evidenced in the letters to the churches recorded in Revelation.
After only 19 comments, did you forget
my reply to the mistaken idea that "Church" = "churches"? I'm also not sure you have quite clear how to distinguish Church teaching from anything else; your comment confuses practices with teaching, for one thing, and it confuses Church teaching with individual acceptance of error.
Some lame statement about "LACK of outcry" 600 years later doesn't cut it paladinan.
Your personal opinion is noted and logged, yet again. But let's explore that: do you believe that ANY Christians were "untainted" by what you've described as "going off track"? If so, do you have any evidence for their existence, at all? If there is what Protestants might consider "a faithful remnant, unstained by Rome", where were they? Where is the evidence for them? Or do you think that the entire world and the entire Church was sunk into worldwide error (akin to what the Mormons believe), and only more recent "prophets" restored the truth?
Paul said anyone who taught something other than what they taught.
FRiend, I've supplied evidence on my side, albeit evidence which doesn't meet with your tastes. I've supplied a Doctor of the Church who attests that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was already established belief, and I've supplied a link to the document which defined the dogma, and which supplies its own references and reasons, including the fact that the Assumption was celebrated in the Church liturgy for centuries before St. John Damascene came on the scene--which you didn't address). Now, fair's fair: tell me how, when, or why you'd consider ANY extrabiblical source as "proof", given a "sola Scriptura" mindset.
And since you've pushed this quote of St. Paul so strongly... where does St. Paul (or any apostle) teach that we are justified by faith ALONE? (Your own reference to Revelation is ironic, actually, since Our Lord threatens to take away the lampstand of the Church at Ephesus, unless they repent and "do the works they did at first".) Where does St. Paul (or any apostle) spell out the exact contents of Scripture, or justify throwing away 7 books of the Bible (and parts of 2 other books)? Where do the Apostles ever contradict St. Peter, who says that Baptism SAVES?
We know what the Catholic Church teaches.
I'm not sure who "we" are... but I'd gently suggest that you might not know what the Church teaches, at all. You've made plenty of elementary errors, about it.
We ask you to prove that the apostles taught it.
...or that it was taught (implicitly or explicitly) in Scripture. Remember?
You might also work in a proof of "sola Scriptura", when you get a chance...
>>where does St. Paul (or any apostle) teach that we are justified by faith ALONE?<<
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Gallatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.
>> Where does St. Paul (or any apostle) spell out the exact contents of Scripture, or justify throwing away 7 books of the Bible<<
The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews and were never part of scripture. The Catholic Church added them.
>>...or that it was taught (implicitly or explicitly) in Scripture. Remember?<<
I keep asking for another infallible proof of what the apostles taught and Catholics can never produce one. That leaves scripture alone.