Infallibility!?

[VociMike]

You would be laughed out of the court.

Still no alternative explanation of the facts, I see.

Each time you post without offering your own explanation makes it more clear to everybody reading this thread that you have no alternative explanation, which means further that your objection to my explanation is not an objective and unbiased one, but rather one driven by your own theological biases and traditions.

In other words, you are not actually interested in getting to the truth of this issue, but only in attacking the Catholic position.

 

[Church_Militant]

I can see it now, your side presents their evidence in a court of law…The attorney approaches the jury…

You would be laughed out of the court.

So…prove us wrong. Offer evidence to prove that there is no basis for this teaching.

There is scripture and historical diocuments to support it.

What have you got? Doubt? A faith based on a fundamentally unbiblical doctrine?

Sorry…I’ll stick with the scholarship of the Catholic Church.

 

[Calvinator]

Still no alternative explanation of the facts, I see.

Each time you post without offering your own explanation makes it more clear to everybody reading this thread that you have no alternative explanation, which means further that your objection to my explanation is not an objective and unbiased one, but rather one driven by your own theological biases and traditions.

In other words, you are not actually interested in getting to the truth of this issue, but only in attacking the Catholic position.

Mike,

My alternative explanation is that there is no evidence.

 

[VociMike]

Mike,

My alternative explanation is that there is no evidence.

Let me clarify the facts that require explanation (and which you have not even attempted to explain):

1. The Church did attack heresy and error during the time in question.
2. The Church did not attack the Assumption when it appeared (according to our records) during the time in question.

These are the facts that must be reconciled with your assertion that the Assumption is heretical or in error. If you insist that the Assumption was a new belief not handed down from the Apostles, you must explain why the Church did not react as it in fact did react to other new beliefs which were not handed down from the Apostles.

When you offer your alternative explanation for these facts then I’ll continue this discussion - not before. I am convinced that you know you don’t have a leg to stand on in this matter, which is why you are dodging the question so tenaciously, but you can of course prove me wrong.

 

[Calvinator]

Let me clarify the facts that require explanation (and which you have not even attempted to explain):

1. The Church did attack heresy and error during the time in question.
2. The Church did not attack the Assumption when it appeared (according to our records) during the time in question.

These are the facts that must be reconciled with your assertion that the Assumption is heretical or in error. If you insist that the Assumption was a new belief not handed down from the Apostles, you must explain why the Church did not react as it in fact did react to other new beliefs which were not handed down from the Apostles.

When you offer your alternative explanation for these facts then I’ll continue this discussion - not before. I am convinced that you know you don’t have a leg to stand on in this matter, which is why you are dodging the question so tenaciously, but you can of course prove me wrong.

Of course it was handed down by the apostles…how could I have missed this! The RCC says so, so it has to be true.

Okay, you win, you have provided the evidence I wanted. The evidence of non-evidence we will call it.

 

[Calvinator]

So…prove us wrong. Offer evidence to prove that there is no basis for this teaching.

There is scripture and historical diocuments to support it.

What have you got? Doubt? A faith based on a fundamentally unbiblical doctrine?

Sorry…I’ll stick with the scholarship of the Catholic Church.

I can’t prove a negative. What evidence would prove that this doctrine can’t be traced back to the apostles? Other than there isn’t any evidence that can show it was taught by the apostles, which of course is a major flaw in your doctrine.

Go back and re-read my posts, my only point is that there is no evidence that the apostles taught this doctrine, since you guys claim it was taught by the apostles. That is my one and singular point.

Since you guys affirm this doctrine and that it goes back to the apostles it would seem that the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Philthy]

Boys, boys, boys - take a deep breath and relax. :yup:

The question of what constitutes “proof” or even “evidence” of something is going to vary from person to person. My good friend Calvinator, what I first objected to - your claim that the belief in the Assumption could not have existed prior to the 4th or 5th century because we have no written evidence of it - really meant to go no further than pointing out that such a claim is simply an overstatement. I was not attempting to hijack the thread as a defense of the Assumption.
As an aside, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Assumption would not be contained in Apostolic writings because we really don’t know how late Mary’s Assumption was - many of the Apostles were perhaps already dead.

We may now return to the previously scheduled program.

 

[guanophore]

Hold up.

At one point the clergy could marry. At some point, I believe circa 1150 they were disallowed from marrying. The church changed its doctrine for two possible reasons:

1.) It was God’s will.
2.) Out of a more secular or social concern or purpose.

If you contend the church imposed clerical celibacy due to the first, why didn’t God simply “tell” the first alleged Pope to implement this policy from the very beginning?

You are confusing doctrine with practice. Priestly celibacy is a rule, not a doctrine. As such, it could change (probably won’t tho).

Confessions used to be public, too, but they are not now.

 

[guanophore]

In any case, priests were forbidden to marry very early in the Church’s history.

I think this is not the best way to say it, since there is a verse that says:

1 Tim 4:1-3
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry,

To prevent causing confusion to Protestants, it is important to emphasize that the Church does not forbid marriage. She recognizes that the call to the priesthood is a full time vocation, as is marriage, and wants her ministers to be unburdened by the cares that belong to marriage. However, it is not that they are “forbidden to marry”, rather, that the church chooses her priest from among those called to celibacy.