Here is what the word evidence means:It most certainly is evidence. Are you going to start redefining words now to avoid dealing with this evidence?
The lack of any Church response to these alleged new beliefs is precisely “a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something”, that something being that the Church already believed them.Here is what the word evidence means:
something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.
As you can see the nonexistence of something is not evidence for something. There is no evidence in the early centuries of the church of the immaculate conception or assumption.
Wrong. Big time.As you can see the nonexistence of something is not evidence for something. There is no evidence in the early centuries of the church of the immaculate conception or assumption.
Sometimes little errors creep in unnoticed. We can see this even in some of the early fathers for example. They all would not have believed what the catholic church teaches today. Take Mary being without sin. Some fathers believed she did sin. That would make them false in this regards yet we don’t see them being rebuked do we?How does that answer the lack of condemnation of a new error? For the Church would have then already had to be in error, so then we must look for earlier condemnation of the earlier error, and not finding it, we must propose an even earlier error, and so on, and so on, right back to the beginning. The logical (?) conclusion of this line of thinking is that the Church went apostate right after the last New Testament book was written. Ahh, but why didn’t the Church then oppose the first error?
The fact is, such a line of argument is completely untenable. So once again I will ask, why did the Church not oppose these new, invented errors when they first appeared?
If little errors can creep in unnoticed then how do we know that this happened with the early fathers? We know it happened because the errors were noticed by others! Your example of the early fathers actually disproves your theory rather than proving it.Sometimes little errors creep in unnoticed. We can see this even in some of the early fathers for example. They all would not have believed what the catholic church teaches today. Take Mary being without sin. Some fathers believed she did sin. That would make them false in this regards yet we don’t see them being rebuked do we?
What this demonstrates is how early errors were creeping into the church at an early date. Much of what is here is unbiblical and speculations. Thanks for helping to make my case.Wrong. Big time.
II. Mary’s Immaculate Conception
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).
“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446)
When was it noticed though and by whom? Who in the early church rebukes these fathers as being wrong about Mary?If little errors can creep in unnoticed then how do we know that this happened with the early fathers? We know it happened because the errors were noticed by others! Your example of the early fathers disproves your theory.
The Early Christians believed it so. These beliefs are not made up. They were revealed to us. I’m already how pointless it is to discuss with you all Catholic doctrines. If you insist in the errors, ask the Lord himself when you die if these doctrines are true or not.What this demonstrates is how early errors were creeping into the church at an early date. Much of what is here is unbiblical and speculations. Thanks for helping to make my case.
On the contrary, we find no historical evidence that the Early Church did not believe] in the Immaculate Conception, nor the Assumption / Dormition of Mary.What this demonstrates is how early errors were creeping into the church at an early date. Much of what is here is unbiblical and speculations. Thanks for helping to make my case.
It is not mere speculation that by John in scripture [Revelation 11 and 12] Mary represented as the Ark of the New Covenant. It is not speculation that the Church beleives this. Mary is the new Eve to Jesus’s new Adam.What is being presented is not evidence but more speculations. Evidence that you need to show are documents that teach that they did believe such things. Again, just because the church did not reject something does not mean they believed it. Think of the ramifications of what you are saying here. If i applied this kind of reasoning to other things we would be believing in all kinds of nonsense.
You brought up the example of early fathers who made errors. Whatever errors you were referring to were obviously detected and corrected by the Church or else we wouldn’t be calling them errors now. I simply took your example on face value. Either you do know of errors (that would be considered errors by the Catholic Church) by the early fathers, in which case my argument stands, or you don’t, in which case your argument falls.When was it noticed though and by whom? Who in the early church rebukes these fathers as being wrong about Mary?
The ECF believe she was sinless and taken up into heaven by her son. The Eastern Orthodox believe it so, they celebrate the Feast Day of the Dormition of Mary (Falling Asleep of Mary).When was it noticed though and by whom? Who in the early church rebukes these fathers as being wrong about Mary?
I just don’t get your argument. If they made a mistake by accepting the assumption, they made a mistake, whether it was the first one or the 1,000th one.How does that answer the lack of condemnation of a new error?
I don’t buy into the one error completely derails the church line of thinking.The logical (?) conclusion of this line of thinking is that the Church went apostate right after the last New Testament book was written.
Maybe they made an error in accepting the assumption?So once again I will ask, why did the Church not oppose these new, invented errors when they first appeared?
At least some ECF’s did believe this but the issue is that there is no evidence of this belief dating back to the apostles.The ECF believe she was sinless and taken up into heaven by her son. The Eastern Orthodox believe it so, they celebrate the Feast Day of the Dormition of Mary (Falling Asleep of Mary).
They do. What do you see in the above quote that makes you think otherwise?“It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. . …” John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96,741), (ante A.D. 749).
And I thought catholics believed God did that for her.
But how can one “make a mistake” by accepting a new belief as something that one has always believed? How can the Church on one day not believe X, and on the next day say “we have always believed X”? Does the Church have no memory of what she believes from one day to the next?I just don’t get your argument. If they made a mistake by accepting the assumption, they made a mistake, whether it was the first one or the 1,000th one.
Honest answer - I’m not sure if I read it or came up with it myself.BTW, did you come up with this argument by yourself or did you see it used by another apologist? This isn’t meant to be insulting, I’m just curious.
I appreciate your reply but I just don’t see how the lack of evidence can be evidence.But how can one “make a mistake” by accepting a new belief as something that one has always believed? How can the Church on one day not believe X, and on the next day say “we have always believed X”? Does the Church have no memory of what it believes from one day to the next?
Honest answer - I’m not sure if I read it or came up with it myself.