I am laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion: 2013 - let's set up a debate. I'll take on ten of you at once, if you'd like. I don't care. If you want to roll through the whole group, I don't care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn't matter. You simply defend the following words, ok? You defend these words:
... a truth which is founded on the Sacred Scriptures, has been fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful in Christ, has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times, is quite in harmony with other revealed truths, and has been splendidly explained and declared by the zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the theologians."(full text at #2332)
To what do we refer? Those are words from the definition of the bodily assumption of Mary, which actually began:
Since, then, the universal Church, in which the Spirit of Truth flourishes, who infallibly directs it to achieve a knowledge of revealed truths, has through the course of the ages repeatedly manifested its own faith; and since the bishops of the whole world with almost unanimous consent request that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faithand then you have that following description. So will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is a truth which is founded on the sacred scriptures? Secondly, that it has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times? So, will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is founded on the Sacred Scriptures and was a part of the teaching of the ancient church in the earliest times? Now, I know factually beyond any doubt that that is a lie. It is untrue. There is not any reason on this planet to believe that, other than you have already accepted the authority claims of the bishop of Rome. Period. End of discussion.
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Pray the Rosary to the Interior Feb 2, 2018
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
James White's Absurd Challenge
I had to laugh when I read the Calvinist/apologist James White's latest debate challenge to the folks over at the 'Called to Communion' blog. Check this out. Is this not the most arrogant, absurd challenge you have ever seen? How many times does this guy have to be beaten in a debate to get the hint that his heretical positions don't hold water? I would encourage you to listen to his debates against Robert Sungenis, to whom he has lost to every time. Listen to the papal infallibility debate, where he makes White look like a complete fool. Every time White thought he had an 'ace in the hole' concerning some historical event disproving the papacy, like the old Pope Honorius/Zosimus nonsense for example, Robert clearly demonstrated how White was completely ignorant of the facts. What is amazing, is that after White was shown that he had no leg to stand on, he still closed his debate clinging to his legless arguments. Look at White's latest act of arrogant imbecility. What a joke.