dogma and doctrine

So, where is the tomb of Mary? Where are her relics? Where is the church built above where she is buried? Where are the written accounts of her death and burial?

 

Is God dead? I can't see him either? Nor can I account for the graves and relics of hundreds of the people mentioned in the Bible, and in history outside of the Bible--all of which have never been found. So what! An argument from silence is no argument at all.
DHK

 

Is God dead? I can't see him either? Nor can I account for the graves and relics of hundreds of the people mentioned in the Bible, and in history outside of the Bible--all of which have never been found. So what! An argument from silence is no argument at all.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Is it proof, no. Good thing I didn't claim it was! However, how can any Christian not be intensely curious why there is no record whatsoever of the death and burial of the mother of Jesus Christ. Don't just go into your so what, Catholic-bad mode; think about how very amazing it is that there is not a single speck of evidence regarding Mary's death and burial. She's not just one of hundreds of people in the bible, she's the mother of Jesus Christ. Aren't you at all curious about this?

 

Sure, We may be curious. But doctrine or dogma must not be based on spurious speculation. It must be based on fact. My faith is based on facts--the facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. These are things which we can verify, and are taught in the Scriptures. The assumption of Mary is: 1) unverifiable, and 2) not taught in the Scriptures.
DHK

 

DHK,

I hope you don't think I am ignoring you but this has been a busy week for me and I haven't had enough time to post a reply to your reply to my reply to Ps104_33. This is what confused me at first. I went back through the thread to find your first post and found that it was after mine.

You wrote:

Please put brain in gear before mouth in action. This is totally a Catholic invention. The only so-called Scriptural support given was that if it was possible for Elijah to be translated, then it ought to be possible for Mary to be bodily assumed into Heaven. Nonsense!! And yet this doctrine was added to the Catholic Church's canon of dogma. This was a change. The fact that one more doctrine had been added meant that the body of Catholic doctrine has now been changed. There is no Biblical evidence for it. Can you prove that there is?

I was responding the Ps104_33's use of the word change and his/her question of whether the Catholic Church changes doctrine. The issue of whether the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is scriptural or unscriptural is a separate issue for another thread. (I'm sure you know that I believe there is nothing unscriptural about the Assumption. I know that you disagree. However, that is a separate issue from the issue of whether the Catholic Church changes doctrine.)

Your response makes it obvious that you did not read either of the two links I gave, nor have you done any independent research into this topic. If you had, you would have seen that the doctrine of the Assumption has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church for many centuries before 1950. (Whether you agree or disagree with the doctrine of the Assumption, you should at least be honest enough to admit that the Catholic Church held this to be doctrine WAAAY before 1950.) 1950 was when the Catholic Church found it necessary to formally declare this long-held doctrine to be dogma. In doing so, She did not invent or change anything. True, by declaring the doctrine to be dogma, She added this doctrine to the list of dogma but She did not change any of her beliefs.

Perhaps it is you who should put brain in gear before putting mouth (or fingers on keyboard) in action. If you are unwilling to at least look at information given in response to your posts, then I will waste no more bandwidth responding to you.

I would really like to know Ps104_33's response since he/she posted the original question.

Catholic Dad

 

My point was in response to an assertion that you made (whether to Psalm 104 or not is irrelevant). You challengend" show me where the Catholic church has ever changed its doctrine. Thus I brought in an example of change: "the assumption of Mary." Yes, you are right in the fact that there were some that believed in this before 1950. But it was not made an official part of the Catholic dogma until 1950, just as the Apocrypha was not made an official part of the Catholic Bible until 1532 at the Council of Trent. In both cases the body of Catholic Doctrine was added to (officially), and thus changed. Whether people believed in these things before those dates is totally irrelevant. Your official catechism, your Catholic body of doctrine was changed. Thus your original statement is false. Your challenge has been proven to be wrong.
DHK