The Charism of Infallibility

[LittleLes]

Socrates wrote:

"You've again proven absolutely nothing here. Catholics are not "Sola Scriptura." Mary's Assumption was part of the oral tradition of the Church."

RESPONSE:

No. The "tradition" or legend of Mary's assumption began in the fourth or fifth century as admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia. No scripture or writing of the Early Church Fathers claims such. Thus there is no evidence that it existed earlier.

Socrates then quotes the late fourth century writing of Epiphanius:

A.D. 377, "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary's earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

"Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires" (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474)."

RESPONSE: Scrates doesn't realize what this actually admits.

Here Epiphanius is admitting that there is NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE about the Assumption and HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Socrates then goes on to say:

"From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary's unique passing.

RESPONSE: Admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). "

Thus near the start of the sixth century the Assumption began to be celebrated. NOTE: Not earlier becasue the legend hadn't developed until the late fourth or fifth century, as is also described in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Socrates ends with this amusing evidence:

"However, no one claimed to have Mary's remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ's Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary's Assumption."

Following this logic, since we don't know where St Joseph is buried, is that proof that he had an "assumption" too? I think not.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:23 AM']While one can't help but laugh, it is quite frustrating.....the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of scholarship, the games, the utter stupidity, these things are not funny.  It is quite sad that he thinks that he is effecting anyone or affecting a change in the beliefs of those here at phatmass.
Kilroy, we already debated Pastor Aeternus.  Can we shut this thread down now?  Papal infallibility has been beaten to death....
[right][snapback]647716[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Yes, I can see why you want this thread shut down. When there is no creditable rebuttal, that's what apologists do

And you overlooked the facts of history and the documentary evidence that he insists upon .

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 18 2005, 07:34 AM']RESPONSE:

Yes, I can see why you want this thread shut down. When there is no creditable rebuttal, that's what apologists do

And you overlooked the facts of history and the documentary evidence that he insists upon . 
[right][snapback]647722[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

whatever.....we have been over all this before.....trolling a dead topic is not worth the effort. I am done.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:13 PM']His only point of consistency is that according to him, the Church is always wrong.  (an odd view for a self-proclaimed "Catholic," don't you think?)
[right][snapback]646837[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I have a strong feeling he's a Protestant who's pretending he's Catholic, an attempt to give him more credibility; that or some messed up agnostic who is confused on what he believes himself.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 18 2005, 08:38 AM']whatever.....we have been over all this before.....trolling a dead topic is not worth the effort.  I am done.
[right][snapback]647756[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. Rather than admit that one has not and cannot validly refute the documentation presented, it is always wise to retire from the field.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 18 2005, 09:04 AM']I have a strong feeling he's a Protestant who's pretending he's Catholic, an attempt to give him more credibility; that or some messed up agnostic who is confused on what he believes himself.
[right][snapback]647773[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Any evidence to present, or just an ad homimen when the facts prove the error of your position?

[LittleLes]

Thank you once again , Socrates, for suppling the quotations from the late fourth century writing of Epiphanius:

A.D. 377, "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary's earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died.
Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires" (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes as follows:

"Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11)."

" The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious."

In short, the Assumption is not mentioned in scripture and Epiphanius, writing about the beginning of the fourth century, claims he know nothing about. So much for it being included in the "deposit of faith."

After this, the legend appears, first as spurions writing about the fourth or fifth century. More spurious writings of St. Augustine and St. Jerome are added. A feast day was then established during the following century, and 1900 years later it becomes an infallible doctrine via an ex cathedra papal statement.

A fact of history or a pious legend that became infallible?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 17 2005, 07:38 PM']Thus far, for all your ramblings, you haven't given a single fact which proves Papal Infallibility wrong.

And furthermore, since you reject the Church's teaching authority, why should any of this even matter to you?

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The existence of papal infallibility is not mine to disprove since it has not been proven to exist in the first place. It is an assertion made without evidence. Any religion or belief group can make such a claim.

Put simply, the hierarchial Church asserts that it is infallible. As proof it then claims that what it says is infallible, and because it is infallible everybody should believe this assertion.

See any circular reasoning here?

I reject error whatever the source.

[Quietfire]

LittleLes,
The burden of proof is not on the Church, but on you. Since YOU claim the Church is wrong.
Everytime you ask for proof it is given, then you dismiss it.
Yet when you provide information, your 'proof' is incorrect and/or adjusted to fit to your accusations.
Therefore, you have given no proof.
Again, it is up to you to provide burden of proof and up until now, all you have provided is your personal opinion with cut and paste excerpts taken [i]out of context[/i] to fit your personal opinions as well as incorrect information concerning the topic.
You also claim that these threads of yours shouldnt be shut down due to the hits they receive (people reading them). In all honesty, I only click on these threads again and again to see if youve come to your senses yet or what others are saying that prove your statements wrong again and again.
Yes, I know you are going to either accuse me of an ad homimen attack or that you are going to demand that I show proof where you have been shown wrong etc.
I think you enjoy this attention, really. Even though it is negative attention and you consistenty cry wolf, it is attention none the less. I went to school with enough kids to see this pattern, and you fit the bill exactly. You would rather disrupt the class and get punished (and thus turning the attention on you), than sit in your chair and not be noticed by everyone.

I only check on these threads because I enjoy seeing your heresy being smacked down again and again.

Pax.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 18 2005, 10:35 AM']
LittleLes,
The burden of proof is not on the Church, but on you. Since YOU claim the Church is wrong.


RESPONSE:

No. Not at all. If the Church claimed St Peter had a halo and lived in Brooklyn, the burden of the proof would not be on me to prove he didn't.

The burden of proof is always on the person or group making the original positive assertion. Not on the responder to prove a negative.

However, long-suffering person that I am, give me a day or so and I'll outline the problems with the Church's claim of papal infallibility. I'll try to organize them by group.

LittleLes

[Kilroy the Ninja]

This thread will be shut down.

The reason is simple.

According to Littleles' profile he claims to be Catholic.

Yet he argues against the infallibility of the papacy.

The phorum guidelines clearly state there will be no Catholic v. Catholic arguing tolerated.

Therefore this thread is over.

Papal infallibility reigns supreme on this very Catholic website.

Unless dUSt wishes to re-open the thread.

Furthermore, future threads regarding the validity of the infallibity of the Pope opened by a Catholic will be shut down.

My suggestion is honesty in one's profile.

God Bless.