Debate: The Bodily Assumption Of Mary (White vs Sungenis)

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated is prohibited.

Debate Format and Speaker Introductions

Okay, welcome, I'll get right to it and introduce our speakers. Dr. Robertson Jennis is the President of Catholic Apologetics International, an international evangelistic organization dedicated to teaching and defending the Catholic faith.

Since 1993, Dr. Singenis has authored 12 books and hundreds of articles, has appeared on various television and radio programs including CNN, EWTN, and the BBC. He has advanced degrees in religion and theology and is presently enrolled for a second doctorate at Liverpool Hope University in England.

His master's degree comes from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA, making him very familiar with the positions of Dr. White and all Reformation thinkers. And Dr. James White is a director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Dr. White is a professor, having taught Greek, systematic theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than 20 books, is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than 100 moderated public debates.

He's an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelly for more than 28 years, and has two children, Joshua and Summer. The topic of our debate tonight will be the bodily assumption of Mary, and the specific resolution which Dr. St. Janus will defend is the bodily assumption of Mary, as defined by Roman Catholicism, is a divinely revealed dogmatic truth.

Now the format of our debate will be that both speakers will make 20-minute opening statements, 10-minute rebuttal, five-minute rebuttals to the rebuttal, and then 15 minutes, then a break, 10-minute break, strict, 15-minute cross-examination each, and then a 10-minute closing statement each.

So the debater's task is to keep the debate civil and on topic. Mine is to keep it on time. And yours is to reiterate what Paul Skarzafava said, please hold your applause until the very, very end of the debate, no amening, no heckling, no calling out.

If you do so, you will be promptly escorted out. And Pastor Skarzafava, you know some guys. Gabish? I'm just saying, I hear things, I hear things. Now, we will not have questions from the audience, which is why we're giving the speakers half an hour, 15 minutes each to question each other, let them get it on that way.

Please turn off your cell phones, and with that, let's get started. Dr. St. Genes, 20-minute opening statement, please.

The Bodily Assumption of Mary and Catholic Motivation

Well, thank you again for coming this evening, glad to see most of you back. And I hope you're in for another rip-roaring debate. This one is going to be a little different than the last one, of course.

This one deals with the doctrines of Mary, precious to the Catholic Church, not so precious to a lot of other churches. So, I have an uphill climb here, and I think, though, that what I have to present will be appreciated by you.

First, let me define the assumption of Mary. We would say that the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, and presently lives and reigns with Christ, who is in the right hand of the Father.

We would not say that Mary was ascended into heaven, or ascended into heaven, since ascension, which occurred with Jesus in Acts 1, would mean she went to heaven by her own power. She was taken up to heaven by the power of God.

Now, the question that would normally come up at this point is, why is this doctrine so important to Catholics? It is a dogma of the Church. And if you don't believe it in the Catholic Church, then you're condemned.

Of course, that's true with any dogma in the Catholic Church. If you choose not to believe it, then you are condemned. One reason is that it allows Christ and Mary to share their mother-son relationship uninterrupted.

The great love that Christ had for His mother moved Him to assume her into heaven. Now, that may not mean much to us, and I understand that. But, if it did mean something to Christ, and that was His motivation, and He did have a great love for her, I can see that as being the prime motivation.

Scripture gives us precedent for the draw of love. In Genesis 5 .24, it says that Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. Hebrews 11 .5 is even more explicit about this instance. It says, by faith Enoch was taken up, so that he would not see death.

And he was not found on earth, because God took him up. For he obtained the witness that before his being taken up, he was pleasing to God. So, apparently, God had a great love for Enoch, and thus assumed him into heaven.

Likewise, it would be no stretch of the imagination to say that Christ had a great love for His mother, and thus assumed her into heaven. Some people believe that Enoch may come back in the future to do a mission for God.

Some people believe the same about Elijah, who 2 Kings 2 .11 tells us, was also taken to heaven, body and soul, in a whirlwind. This leads to the more important reason for Mary's assumption into heaven.

She was later given a mission from God to communicate God's message directly to the people on earth. If her body had not been assumed into heaven, she could not come back with a body to earth and deliver God's message.

The most dramatic physical appearance of Mary was at Fatima, Portugal, in October 1917. At that time, she prophesied that World War I would end shortly, and it did several months later. But that there would be another world war unless men repented of their sins and turned to God.

As we all know, that war did come in 1939. And she prophesied to these Fatima children that it would come. In 1917, that same Mary at Fatima warned of Russia being used by God as a chastisement upon the world.

And it was in the following year, 1918, that the Russian Bolsheviks, most of them atheistic Jews, murdered the Christian Tsar, whose ancestors had reigned in the Romanov dynasty for over 500 years. It was this same Mary who in 1917 gave the three Fatima children and the 70 ,000 people gathered with them the miraculous vision of the sun moving about wildly in the sky.

Reports of which anyone here can look up in the Portugal newspaper O Seculo of October 13, 1917 on the internet and read the eyewitness accounts of the people who saw it. Or look it up on Wikipedia and find the same information.

This was the same Mary who warned in another appearance in 1929 that in order to stop the spread of Russia's atheism across the world, that nation had to be consecrated by the Pope and his bishops. But since it was never done, or never done properly, the chastisement of the world by the hand of Russia persisted for many years thereafter, wherein nations were devoured and millions lost their lives, and much of the world was immersed in communism.

As Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews of his day, if I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.

John 10, 38. So these works of Mary, I assume, who prophesied events in the 20th century that could have only been foreseen by heaven itself, asks us to believe that she has been commissioned by God to warn us of future events and what to do about them to save our lives and our souls.

So we see that the assumption of Mary is not merely some sentimental doctrine held by Catholics who, as some critics may think, have an over-infatuated view of Christ's mother. The assumption of Mary, as it may be for Enoch and Elijah, who were also assumed into heaven, is an integral part of the plan of God, especially in these days when many believe we are coming very close to the return of Christ and at which Mary has been chosen to be one of the messengers of God.

The dogmatizing of the assumption of Mary in 1950 by Pope Pius XII in his previous teaching in the Assumption in the encyclical Mystici Coporis in 1943 had as one of its purposes the confirmation that what the Fatima witnesses saw in 1917 or what St. Bernadette saw at Lourdes, as another example, in 1858 in her visions of Mary, that is, that these appearances of Mary are possible because Mary's body and soul had been assumed into heaven many centuries prior.

Incidentally, you can also consult Wikipedia and see a picture of St. Bernadette's body that was exhumed in 1909 and lies now in a crypt in Nevers, France, after 131 years is as fresh and incorrupt as the day she died.

And you can see pictures of it on the Internet. So, as Jesus said again in John 10 .38, even though you do not believe me, believe the works that you may know and understand. How much more evidence than a 130-year-old incorruptible corpse does it take to convince people that these things really happened and are from God?

Or are we going to be like the Jews, who with every miracle Jesus did, either denied it or attributed it to the devil? But some will say, but where is the testimony of the assumption in Sacred Scripture?

Where is the testimony of the assumption in the Fathers? To the first question, I answer with Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott, quote, direct and expressed scriptural proofs are not to be had, unquote. But we have possible allusions to the assumption in Scripture, allusions, not direct evidence.

In Psalm 131 .8, Psalm 44 .10 -14, Song of Solomon 3 .6, 4 .8, 8 .5, Isaiah 61 .3. But can we do that? Can we look to allusions in Scripture and use that to support a doctrine as esoteric as the assumption of Mary?

Well, Scripture does give us some precedent for doing so. Let's look at Acts 1, for example. In Acts 1, Judas had died, and now they need to replace him as, replace his apostleship with another man. And so Peter stands up in Acts 1 .20 and says this, For it is written in the book of the Psalms, Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no man dwell in it, and his office let another man take.

It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John, that we choose one of them. Well, let's take a look, a close look, at what Peter's doing here.

He quotes from a psalm, and the psalm is Psalm 69 .25. And he quotes from another psalm, Psalm 109 .8. But if you look at those psalms, they say nothing about Judas, not a word. They say nothing about apostleship, not a word.

So why is Peter using them? If you look at those passages, what they are talking about is David's court. He was the king of Israel, and he had enemies who betrayed him. And in that Psalm 69 .25, he's talking about, let their homestead be desolate, and let no man dwell in it, about the people in his day.

So why is Peter using this? This is now Peter, for the whole church, using a rather obscure scripture to say that Judas now must be replaced by a twelfth apostle. And why do they need twelve apostles?

Why can't they have eleven? Or ten, or maybe thirteen. Why do they need twelve? Well, he answers that in the next verse that he quotes from Psalm 109 .8. It says, his office let another man take. But if you look back at Psalm 109, it says nothing about apostleship.

It says nothing about Judas. There's no prophecy about Judas in the Old Testament. So what's Peter doing? Oh, he's taking another passage from the court of David, where David says that once this man is taken out of the way, let another man take his place.

So David had another officer come into his court to replace the one that had been taken away. And yet Peter is using this rather ambiguous, obscure passage, we might say is just alluding to Judas, and using it for the foundation of the church, to have twelve apostles.

I think that's rather interesting. So we can have a passage of Scripture that may be rather weak in our view, but be used by the church to support its belief. Now to the second question. Where's all the patristic evidence for the assumption of Mary?

Well, I would say the same thing that Ludwig Ott says about Scripture. I would say about patristic evidence, direct and express patristic evidence is not to be had. But what hangs in the balance here, we do have late patristic witnesses, we do have John Damascene, we have Germanus of Constantinople, we have a Modestus of Jerusalem, but some people may not be satisfied with that, because they come rather late on the scene.

John Damascene comes in the 7th century. Some people might believe that the father's patristic evidence might go up until, let's say, you know, Augustine, or to the Council of Orange, 529 A .D. So we have a problem still.

We do have early and late medieval witnesses. We have Anthony of Padua, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Bellarmine, Francis de Sales, Afonsos Liguori, all testified to the assumption of Mary.

But some people in the Catholic Church may not like that, because it's not patristic evidence, and I understand that. But what hangs in the balance for the skeptics to the doctrine of the assumption are two truths, and they both ironically come from Scripture.

We've already seen one in Acts 120. First, Scripture has no verse which says that every doctrine we believe must be explicitly stated in Scripture. Dr. White, for example, believes in the Trinity. He has written a whole book on it called The Forgotten Trinity, and I applaud him for that.

I happen to agree with him on the Trinity. But is it explicitly taught in Scripture? No. Even Dr. White will admit that it is only implicitly taught and that we must, with the utmost care, extract this doctrine from a number of passages, knowing that all kinds of wrong interpretations could be made.

By the same token, does Scripture explicitly teach that Christ is homoousios, the same substance as God, or homoousios, that He's like God? Let's bring it closer to home. Does Scripture teach explicitly about contraception, abortion, artificial insemination, test tube fertilization, genetic engineering, surrogate motherhood, sterilization, masturbation, sex education, eugenics, cloning, equal rights for women, usury, cremation, labor strikes, slavery, etc., etc.?

No, we would all agree that, if anything, judgments on these issues are either not in Scripture or are only there implicitly and must be drawn out of Scripture by logical reasoning. Second, Scripture itself shows us that there will be instances in which we have no direct Scripture upon which to base a doctrine or instances in which the Scripture witnessed is so slight or ambiguous that, as Dr. Ott says, direct and express evidence of it is not to be had.

In the early church, Scripture itself gives us testimony to such an instance, an instance in which there is no Scripture and there is even no tradition. Yet a major doctrine is made for the whole church.

The only thing available is the authority of the church itself to declare the doctrine. This example occurred at the first council of the church in Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15. In verses 1 to 6, the Pharisees, the apostles, the bishops, and Paul and Barnabas are at a huge debate whether the Gentiles coming into the church should be circumcised.

But in verse 7, Peter stands up and gives a short speech, which sets the foundation for the practice of the church for the next 2 ,000 years, namely, the Gentiles will not be required to be circumcised when coming into the church.

What's remarkable here is that Peter cites no Scripture for precedent. In fact, if anything, the available Scripture they had in 37 A .D. when this council took place would seem to be in favor of continuing circumcision, not discontinuing it.

Peter also cites no tradition except to say in verse 10 that the tradition bears witness that circumcision was, quote, a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear, unquote. So Peter, the recognized leader of the church at this time, sees Scripture and tradition not as the ultimate authorities to rely upon to decide this issue.

Instead, he relies on the experiences he had, which showed him that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles had received it. And that from this experience, God was teaching him that there was no longer any distinction to be made between Jews and Gentiles.

Logically, Peter figures, why would we want to sign such a circumcision any longer that was originally assigned for Jews to make a division between them and Gentiles? All of us are saved by grace of the Lord Jesus, he says, and therefore we need no more ceremonial distinctions.

Peter is using his intelligence, his wisdom, his experience, his knowledge, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make this decision that's not explicit in Scripture or tradition. And if any of these were in view, it was only in the remotest sense possible.

Peter's logic was sound, indeed. It was sound enough that it prompted James to stand up and support Peter's declaration by citing a passage of Scripture from Amos, who said and prophesied that the Gentiles were going to be coming into the church to rebuild the temple of David, which had fallen down.

Interestingly enough, Amos, in the Old Testament, doesn't say anything about whether circumcision would be required of these Gentiles. No, that was a decision made by Peter based on the experiences Peter had learned from God a few months earlier or a few years earlier.

So does Scripture give us examples of when Scripture and tradition are virtually silent on a particular issue, but in that vacuum, the recognized leader of the church stands up in the midst of the controversy and decides for everyone in the church worldwide what they will believe from then onward?

Yes, it does. And whoever denies it has denied the testimony of Scripture as well as the history of the church in Acts 15. So would this same scenario be possible 100 years after 37 AD? 200 years after?

500 years after? 1 ,500 years? That is, would it be expected of the recognized leader of the church to stand up in the midst of a controversy about doctrine and declare how the church will answer the controversy and do so without having any direct and explicit testimony of the issue from either Scripture or patristic tradition?

Well, if it happened at the first council of the church, then it could happen at the second council and the third, the fourth, the fifth, and so on. There is no time limit to the help of the Holy Spirit since Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to the church and He would be with her forever, John 14, 16.

Hence, if Peter can declare for the church a dogma which has no explicit evidence from either Scripture or patristic tradition, but only implicit or indirect allusions, and do so based on what he had experienced in his travels with the Gentiles and observing how God was leading them, then the same recognized leader of the church today can declare another dogma for the church, this one concerning the assumption of Mary that serves as the basis for her unique remission from God to proclaim God's warnings to the world.

And he can do so with little or no explicit teaching from either Scripture or patristic tradition and rely only on implicit testimony from both, and there is nothing in either Scripture or tradition that forbids him to do so, and in fact, Scripture and tradition direct him to do so, as Acts 15 teaches.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. St. Genes. 20-minute opening statement, Dr. White, please.

Rome's Authority Claims and the Definition of Dogma

Well, thank you very much for being here this evening. Whoa, a little voice from heaven there for a second. Thank you very much for being here this evening. We have a lot to cover, and it is extremely important material because it has to do with Rome's claims to being able to define dogmatically the gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Since November of 1950, the bodily assumption of Mary has been a defined dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, a belief one must hold to be a faithful member of the one true Christian church, the mother of all churches.

We read in the papal document defining it, for the glory of Almighty God, who has lavished His special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her son, the immortal king of the ages, and the victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august mother, and for the joy and exaltation of the entire church, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence, if anyone which God forbids should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith, this being the papal document Munificentissimus Deus from 1950.

Now, Rome claims to be governed as the Church of Christ by Scripture and tradition. Yet, the three major dogmas defined by Rome in the past century and a half tell a completely different story. Now, sola scriptura is the belief that the God-inspired Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith of the Church.

Only that which is theanustos, God-breathed, can function as the infallible guide for God's people. Rome denies sola scriptura and replaces it with her own authority. Rome claims infallibility for her magisterium as a whole, and in particular for the Bishop of Rome when speaking ex cathedra.

Sola ecclesia is the functional Roman position. Rome defines what Scripture is, that is the canon, and what Scripture says, its meaning. What tradition is and what it means. How can Rome be under the authority of either one when she defines what is, and what is Scripture and tradition, what tradition means as well.

This becomes exceptionally important in that Rome claims her dogmas on Mary, including the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, are revelations. When were these things revealed? That is a question that we need to understand.

Now, Dr. Segenes has stated that he does not need to provide a biblical basis for the Bodily Assumption since Rome does not require such a foundation being infallible and the final authority. He just made that presentation himself.

But as Carl Keating said in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, still fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly.

The mere fact that the Church teaches the Doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. That is sola ecclesia. Now, Munificentissimus Deus carefully avoids saying any one Scripture is proof of the Bodily Assumption.

However, it does refer to a number of interpretations offered by holy writers that give evidence of the prevalence of the Doctrine in their thinking. The proposed interpretations speak for themselves.

Here is an example from the 29th section of that document. Among the holy writers who at that time employed statements and various images and analogies of sacred Scripture to illustrate and to confirm the Doctrine of the Assumption, which was piously believed, the evangelical Dr. St. Anthony of Padua holds a special place.

On the feast day of the Assumption, while explaining the prophet's words, I will glorify the place of my feet, Isaiah 60, verse 13, he stated as certain that the divine Redeemer had bedecked with supreme glory His most beloved mother from whom He had received human flesh.

He asserts that, quote, you have here a clear statement that the Blessed Virgin has been assumed in her body where was the place of the Lord's feet. Hence, it is that the holy psalmist writes, Arise, O Lord, into your resting place, you and the ark which you have sanctified.

And he asserts that just as Jesus Christ is risen from the death over which He triumphed and is ascended to the right hand of the Father, so likewise the ark of the sanctification has risen up since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken into her heavenly dwelling.

Now, all we have to do is look at the biblical text. There is Isaiah 60, verse 13. The glory of Lebanon shall come to you, the cypress, the plain and the pine to beautify the place of my sanctuary and I will make the place of my feet glorious.

What's being referred to? The temple in Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with Mary. And yet, if you're looking for a way of inserting Mary, I guess that's how you have to find such things. We also read in section 27,.

Moreover, the scholastic doctors have recognized the assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified in that woman clothed with the sun. Similarly, they have given special attention to these words in the New Testament.

Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women. And yet, the earliest interpretations from the first centuries, the Christian era of Revelation 12, and the woman clothed with the sun, universally spoke of her not as Mary, the mother of Jesus, but as the church.

And there is nothing in an angelic greeting of Mary, as one who has been graciously blessed by God, that is not said of all believers, both as to the specific term used, karatao, used of all believers in Ephesians 1 .6, as well as the form of the participle, likewise used of people in Matthew 25 .34.

So, if it's not in Scripture, then where would we might find it? Well, what about tradition? Well, as Juniper Carroll says, and as Ott agreed, as Dr. Syngenis noted, the first expressed witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal gospel, the transited Beati Maria of Pseudo-Melito.

This is a 4th to 5th century document, and even then, it is Pseudo-Melito, that is, someone is writing as if they were Melito of Sardis, who lived at the end of the 2nd century, but was not. These are apocryphal gospels.

We read about them from William Webster, quote,. In his decree, Pope Galatius lists the transited teaching under the following condemnation. These, and writing similarly these, which the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics, have taught or written, we confess have not only been rejected, but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church, and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema.

Yes, folks, the first source we can find for this concept of bodily assumption is an apocryphal material that the Pope of Rome condemned as heretical at the end of the 5th century. That's the first place.

Now, some people say, oh, but doesn't Epiphanius say something? Well, let's listen to what he had to say. But if some think us mistaken, 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. Scripture is absolutely silent on the end of Mary. For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence.

The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left this matter uncertain. Did she die? We do not know. The Holy Virgin died and was buried, or she was killed, or she remained alive since nothing is impossible with God, and he can do whatever he desires.

For her end, no one knows. At the end of the 4th century, we don't know. We have nothing from the apostles. We've got nothing at all. This is extremely important because as Juniper Carroll rightly points out, a Roman Catholic writer, I point out, in these conditions, we shall not ask patristic thought, as some theologians still do today under one form or another, to transmit to us with respect to the assumption a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages.

Such an attitude would not fit the facts. Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission. Here's Juniper Carroll admitting there is no apostolic tradition on this matter in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, speaking of the account of Pseudo-Milito, Juniper Carroll says, the account of Pseudo-Milito, like the rest of the transitive literature, is admittedly valueless as history. As an historical report of Mary's death and corporeal assumption, under that aspect, the historian is justified in dismissing it with critical distaste.

The earliest known patristic witness to the belief in the assumption in the West appears to be St. Gregory of Tours, around 593. However, now listen to this, due to the detail in which he describes the death of our Blessed Mother with the apostles in attendance and her assumption at the command of Christ, some scholars believe that he was greatly influenced by what?

The Apocrypha. And what are they referring to there? The transitive literature, which was condemned by Pope Galatius, and as we have seen, is not only apocryphal, it is historically worthless. However, apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to the assumption among the fathers of either the East or the West prior to the end of the 5th century.

Now, we have a very interesting statement here. Listen carefully to what this Roman Catholic writer is saying. In order to establish the continuity of a given doctrine throughout the ages, it is not necessary that we possess an uninterrupted chain of explicit testimonies linking our times with the apostolic period.

The reason for this is quite obvious. Since the custody and infallible interpretation of the deposit of faith has been entrusted by God to a living organism, which is the Church, and since the Church of today is the same moral person it was in the 1st or 2nd century, it follows logically that whatever the Church of today holds and teaches as pertaining to the original deposit of revelation was also held and taught, at least implicitly, by the Church of the 1st centuries.

Now, you see, why does Carroll have to say this? Listen to this last paragraph. Either we accept this, this idea that, well, the Church is the same today as it was then, and therefore, if it's taught today, it must have always been true.

That's sola ecclesia to the max. Either we accept this as an incontrovertible principle, or we'll be confronted with very serious difficulties trying to reconcile the fact that the deposit of revelation was closed at the death of the last apostle with the fact that the Church has defined as divinely revealed certain truths which were not always explicitly believed, such as the Immaculate Conception, to cite but one example.

I appreciate the honesty. Carroll recognizes what Rome has defined as dogmatically true was absolutely unknown to the apostles of Jesus Christ, unknown to Scripture, and unknown to the early centuries of the Christian faith.

They somehow lived without this as part of the gospel. But we can't today? Very, very interesting. What's more than this, Pius XII didn't just sit back and do an unbiased examination of the facts here, folks.

As what Carroll points out, the dogma was part of a program planned by Pius XII as he confided to Monsignor, later Cardinal Tardini, shortly after he became pope. This was a plan he had before he became pope.

This was something he wanted to do should he become pope. That's not exactly putting you in a position of judging things fairly, is it? And listen to this. Due largely to Father Yugi's expertise and influence, the question of Mary's death was removed from the scope of the dogma.

The idea of tracing a historical tradition from apostolic times was abandoned. It was thought better to concentrate on the whole of divine revelation so as to bring to an explicit stage what it contained implicitly.

Again, though the pope said that all the proofs and considerations of the Holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the sacred scriptures as their ultimate foundation, he appealed principally to the faith of the Church rather than any particular biblical text as the basis of the definition.

Again, this is O 'Carroll, who is a Roman Catholic writer. Now, I simply have to ask us a question. Is this a solid foundation for a dogma of the Christian faith? We have been told, you don't need to have an explicit statement.

We don't really need to know what the early Church said. The Church that Christ has commissioned has told us this is true, and that's enough. And if you've been listening carefully, that's exactly what the foundation the pope was functioning on.

Well, since the majority of people have said this is true, the bishops agree with me, there's this universal consent, well, then, this is what the Church teaches, therefore, it's true because we're the same Church.

Is that what the early Christians believed? Is that what we should believe? Athanasius, the great bishop of Alexandria, wrote, the holy and inspired scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth.

How could you preach the bodily assumption from the scriptures? You can't because it's not there. These canonical books are the fountains of salvation so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them.

In these alone the school of piety preaches the gospel. Let no man add or take away from them. When the pope said this is dogmatic, de fide, dogma, he added this to the gospel. You believe it or you're cut off.

Athanasius didn't believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. And yet he was the defender, the key defender, even when the bishop of Rome collapsed. It was Athanasius who stood firm for what? The deity of Christ.

How did he do so? On the basis of some nebulous tradition?

Scripture.

Listen to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Even to me who tell you these things, do not give ready belief unless you receive from the holy scriptures the proof of the things which I announce, the salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from what?

The holy scriptures. This is in his catechetical lectures. He's a bishop in the church in the middle of the fourth century. And he says, even though I as a bishop tell you these things, don't receive it just because I tell you.

You need to find your foundation in what?

The holy scriptures. He didn't believe in the bodily assumption either. Never said a word. Never defined it as the gospel. And yet how many times have I heard Roman Catholic apologists say, this is the faith of the 2 ,000 year old church.