As listed earlier on a thread made by Pax, I decided to ask a couple of questions that most Catholics usually evade or fail to answer. In so many ways, there is this notion that Catholics think they have the upper hand whenever they discuss patristic exegesis whenever it comes to scripture or the early church fathers (ECFs). For the most part, much of these troubles lie with some of the faulty presumptions. Below is a list of a few challenges Catholics should take the time to consider whenever discussing these critical challenges. Remember, it all starts with the first one, defining tradition.

Prove to any Protestant the following:
1. Where in either history or the scriptures do we find a description of tradition the way the Catholic Church defines it (yes Pax, it's an all-time favorite question you have never bothered to answer)?

2. Where in either history or the scriptures do we find a concise implicit or explicit evidence that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven?

3.Where in either history or the scriptures do we find the sacraments of marriage and last rites to play vital roles in the process of salvation (as described by the CCC because the sacraments are channels of grace)?

4. Where in either history or the scriptures do we find the terms latria and dulia have been defined to mean something other than 'worship' or 'service'? Again, this is the rub for Catholics. They use these terms interchangeably with venerating and honor. So, where does the Church fathers use and define these terms as exceptions to the first commandment?

5. Where in either history or the scriptures do we find non-biblical sources (e.g. papal encylicals or the ECFs) ever claiming themselves to be counted as infallible or for that matter as already existing members of an infallible magisterium?

Again, these answers not so easy to answer.

Parker

I'm going to get a big bowl of popcorn and enjoy this one.

Where in the Bible does it say that the Blessed Virgin Mary even died?

I'm moving in a few days and need to empty out my liquor cabinet... so I'm sipping' on a bottle of rum, and it might be the only way I enjoy this one.

That's the best response I've heard so far.
And BTW, here's the

Parker

Pax,

Let's answer the first question and not try to pick and choose here.

Parker

Nice try.

If you can show me where inthe Bible it says Mary actually died, then I will guarantee you that I can show you in the Bible that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Or am I asking too much of you?

Oh, thank you. You did say on the other thread that you asked me which one I should go with. I chose #1. Therefore, you should try to cough up the evidence the make this sound more reasonable.



Whether Scripture does mention her death or her bodily assumption is irrelevant; the point of this question is to show that the Catholic church does not follow scripture when it produces doctrines that are not derived from the Scriptures or history for that matter. As far anyone should be concerned, the Church makes up its own doctrines and expects everyone to believe them because the church said so, right?

Parker

The bulk of the New Testament was written while Mary was still alive, hence no reference to her death......that's an easy one...

Exactly my point. Thanks.

What is the point of having 2 identical threads?

I did answer your query in the other thread. You have yet to respond to my answer.

Does scripture record Lazarus dying after he was resurrected by Christ? Shall we assume that he was assumed into heaven, too?

What is there to stop you from assuming such a doctrine?

Why would I? It's not reasonable to make up our own facts.

Here are the facts:

Hebrews 9: [27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:

How, then could Lazarus have died again when Scripture says that men only die once?

So you do think that Lazarus was assumed?

No. I do not. I am asking you to prove from Scripture that Lazarus died again, while showing you a Scripture that could be used to "prove" he did not die again.

I am trying to get you to see that you have a double standard, a dichotomy, in your mind. You put a heavy burden of proof on things you don't want to believe, and a much lighter (or non-existant) burden of proof on things you want to believe. Do you not see that employing such methodologies can never lead you to a proper understanding of the Holy Writ?

Citing a biblical source (2 Thessalonians 2:14) which does NOT define tradition as the Catholic church puts it does not count.

Citing a historical source (Irenaus) who is neither talking about nor providing a definition of tradition as the Catholic Church puts it does NOT count.

Let's try again, smokey!

Parker

Because that's just it, the doctrine is an assumption; not a fact.

Parker

There is no double standard here; Lazarus's death (1st time) corroborates with Hebrews clearly. However, for any of us to know whatever happened to him if he did die a 2nd time or was bodily assumed into heaven is not for us to know. We're putting a heavy burden of proof on your church not because we don't want to believe it; rather, we do not think it's the church's right to produce binding doctrine upon all believers which are not based on scripture.

Parker