Of course we can prove that the teaching of the bodily assumption Mary in the year 491 existed. Jame White is a complete mental midget with no ability to research Church history. We can look to the writings of the Syriac manuscripts of the fathers to see that they all referred to the Dormition or the falling asleep of the Virgin Mary and her assumption into heaven. These Syriac manuscripts date from the early 4th century. Such writings from Epiphinaus, ect all refer to the assumption of Mary. The only thing that was ever disputed was whether she died before she was bodily assumed or not. Many of the Eastern Orthodox believe she died and her soul went to heaven first and then her body was assumed 3 days later. I wouldn't bother with the likes of James White. He is a person who only looks to winning a debate, but little does he know he is debating his way into hell by rejecting Christ and His Church. The Devil laughs and dances a jig as he plays folks like James White for his golden fiddle of heresy. James White is the kind of person who you can show clear evidence to an argument and yet his arrogance never lets him concede his inaccurate position. We can see this every time he debated Robert Sungenis, as well as others who have completely cornered him in a debate, and yet he never admits that he is wrong.

Here is a writing I can pull off the top of my head, the writing of Melito of Sardis. He also testifies to the Blessed Mothers assumption into heaven. The manuscript dates from the 400s. You could bring this to James White and he would still stand in complete denial that this teaching is as ancient as the Church itself. If Mr. White is around I hope he reads this. Here is clear evidence for him proving the the teaching existed in the 400s as was his challenge. It has been met by an amateur sitting at at his home library.

The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus 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 a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).

   As I have traveled over the past three months--speaking at assorted venues around the United States--I have had inquiries from many about the deliberations that went into our decision. As I have said already, I am working on a book that will document my pilgrimage and offer an account of my journey.
   Over the next two months I will be interviewed by Greg Koukl (President of Stand to Reason) on his radio program (August 5) as well as on Catholic Answers Live (September 5) and the television program, The Journey Home (September 24). Each of these is a call-in program.

At each venue I speak on "Counterfeit Catholicism: Why Vatican II, the New Mass, and Benedict XVI Are Not What They Claim to Be," a talk I am continually updating, refining, and adding new elements to. In it I try to provide everything necessary to understand the magnitude of the current crisis (the worst in the 2,000-year history of the Church):

• what Sacred Scripture, Our Lady, saints (such as St. Nicholas of Flue) and Doctors of the Church predict about the great apostasy

• the long-standing plans of Freemasonry, Judaism, and Communism to infiltrate and subvert the Church

• historical precedents in Biblical times, in the Arian and Nestorian crises, in the Great Western Schism, in the English "Reformation," in 17th and 18th century Japan, and in other eras, each of them foreshadowing individual elements that have come together during the current crisis: antipopes on the throne of St. Peter, defections of whole hierarchies from their episcopal office due to heresy, massive apostasy on the part of lay people, lack of easy access by the remaining faithful to valid or lawful sacraments, etc.

• why Vatican II is another "robber council" like 17 others previously condemned by the Church

• the disturbing changes built into the New Mass and new sacraments (especially the new rite for the ordination of bishops) and their impact on the validity of these sacraments

• the errors of the new catechism and the immoralities of the new code of canon law

• the heretical beliefs of the usurpers John XXIII through Benedict XVI

$2500 a month is a shoestring operating budget. That's only $30,000 a year. Compare that to the big name Novus Ordo apologists and apologetics organizations living high off the hog because they, individually, each rake in over a million dollars a year - all of it wasted singing the praises of Benedict XVI and the "New Springtime of the Church" they vainly claim we are now enjoying, and sending people to a counterfeit "Mass" and to counterfeit sacraments from the hands of counterfeit priests who cannot properly save these people's souls.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Some people who have fallen foul of this complaint have endeavored to level charges at the divine Scripture, and especially the inspired oracles, of being shrouded in obscurity. To such people the divine-inspired Paul would retort, “Now, even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, but to the mature it is wisdom we are speaking.” In keeping with this, too, is what is said by our Lord and savior to the holy apostles, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, whereas to those others it is not given;” and to explain the reason he immediately adds, “Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not understand” — that is, they willingly bring upon themselves the cloud of ignorance: if they turn to the Lord, as the apostle says, the veil will be lifted. Divine realities, therefore, are not obscure to everyone, only to those who are voluntarily blind; they ought to take note and realize that nothing worthwhile is readily accessible to human beings. Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, Vol. Two, Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), preface, pp. 27-28.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Let no one, therefore, especially devotees of the true religion, adopt such a presumptuous attitude to the divine Spirit as to accuse his words of obscurity. Instead, in their longing to understand the sacred words, let them cry aloud with the divinely-inspired David, “Unveil my eyes, and I shall grasp the marvels of your law:” having promised the knowledge as a benefit, he will definitely grant the request. In fact, in our case, too, let us offer this request to the Lord, who according to the divine David gives wisdom to the blind, and according to blessed Isaiah to those in gloom and darkness, and let us venture upon a commentary on the divinely-inspired Ezekiel, attempt to plumb the depths of the prophecy as far as is possible for us, and make available to all religious people the value drawn from it. Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, Vol. Two, Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), preface, p. 29.

Hi all,

As an attorney who uses both written and oral formats to advocate for clients, I wanted to put my two cents in this discussion. Lawyers all know that the use of legalistic cross-examination in a formal debating situation (that is mainly what a trial is-a stylized debate with certain rules as to the manner how that debate is conducted) is a tool that that can be used to obscure or distort the truth as well as expose it. Watching some of Mr. White's debates demonstrate that he is proficient in the use of cross-examination to do just that-obscure or hide the truth. There is no Holy Spirit moving him; he is not interested in being factual or accurate; it is all about winning and beating the other guy. He is truly a hypocrite in the original Greek sense of the word-a play actor- and he is good at it. If he were a attorney, he would probably be a rich PI or criminal defense attorney somewhere.

If getting at the truth is truly the purpose of this exercise, then a written format is more conducive to actually getting there. One can't win using trial lawyer tricks to persuade or obscure. Instead, in a brief, one's arguments are laid bare on paper where they can be sifted, weighed and measured. Sure there is oral argument in appellate practice, but it is that-argument and not a cross-examination.

Furthermore, in a trial setting, we lawyers have certain rules of procedure, evidence and ethics that limit how cross-examination is used because we know how cross-examination as a technique can be misused. From what I have seen of Mr. White's debates, there are no similar rules. Instead, sophistry and trick questions seem to be the guiding principal. Many times, White's cross-examination questions are patterned after the old "so when did you stop beating your wife" or false initial premise type question then anything that is designed to get at the truth.

Don't get me wrong, I rather enjoyed seeing him take apart Spong and some of the other relativistic, theologically liberal goofballs that he has taken on. (On those occasions, I truly wish he would see the light and cross the Tiber. However, for now, I thank God he is a Christian like the rest of us.) But while such debates might make good U-tube, they don't necessarily make for good truth seeking.

PhilVaz then hangs up again because there is no reply other than the usual stuff about "bodily assumption of Mary", "satispassio", this or that indulgence or prayer to Mary that White does not like.

PhilVaz: Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord, Yes or No, Mr. White.
White: I have said over, and over, and over again, that sola scriptura --
P: It's a Yes or No.
W: -- is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation.
P: So your answer is No?
W: That is exactly what my answer is.
P: Thank you.
W: It is NO.
P: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or No?
W: NO.
P: Thank you.

PhilVaz: Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord, Yes or No, Mr. White.
White: I would think you would have learned from Gerry's mistakes in that debate, Phil, that hoping for sound-bite victories is empty at best, and deceptive at worst.
PhilVaz: It's just a yes or no question.
White: No, it isn't, and you know it. You are purposefully deceiving your audience by hoping they will not realize that the days of the Apostles and the day in which we live differ fundamentally and that, in reality, we all agree on that fact.
PhilVaz: Yes or no!
White: Since you don't seem willing to even address the issue, I will continue. We both agree that revelation--special, scriptural revelation, was taking place through the ministry of the Spirit of God during the period of Christ's ministry and in the decades that followed. And we both agree that such revelation is not taking place today. Will you at least answer that question?
PhilVaz: I am just asking a yes or no question!
White: I'll take that as an agreement, since I know you know I am speaking the truth. So, since the very definition of sola scriptura assumes the existence of a definable scriptura, and during that time period the scriptura was being given by revelation, how could your question even be relevant, logical, or meaningful?
PhilVaz: Ha! You've admitted I'm right! I win!
White: I've admitted that sola scriptura speaks to the only meaningful question before us today: is there another infallible rule of faith alongside Scripture to which the church is accountable today, now, here? I say to you that only Scripture is theopneustos, God-breathed, and therefore if you are going to allege another infallible rule of faith to which I am to be held accountable, you must demonstrate it to be theopneustos as well.

(A) For the early Church the divine Scriptures AND the oral tradition of the apostles or living apostolic Faith of the Catholic Church together formed the one infallible source and rule of faith for the Church; Church Tradition determined the canon of Scripture and furnished the key to the true interpretation of the Scriptures (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 606);

The old catholic doctrine of Scripture and tradition, therefore, nearly as it approaches the Roman, must not be entirely confounded with it. It makes the two identical as to substance, while the Roman church rests upon tradition for many doctrines and usages, like the doctrines of the seven sacraments, of the mass, of purgatory, of the papacy, and of the immaculate conception, which have no foundation in Scripture. Against this the evangelical church protests, and asserts the perfection and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the record of divine revelation; while it does not deny the value of tradition, or of the consciousness of the church, in the interpretation of Scripture, and regulates public teaching by symbolical books.

White: So, Phil, you like Yves Congar on tradition. Big book, his work on tradition, isn't it?
Porvaznik: Uh, yeah.
White: So, don't you think it is rather odd that in all that verbiage, we can never find anyplace where Congar gives us the actual content of this wonderfully nebulous thing called "tradition"? I mean, let me ask you plainly: did your proposed "tradition" contain the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary in the year 490 AD?
Porvaznik: Well, umm...you see, you have material sufficiency, and formal sufficiency, and....
White: That isn't what I asked you. When you ask me for my rule of faith, I point you to something that can be known, seen, and examined. When I ask for yours, you point me to Scripture and tradition. When I ask you what is contained in tradition, you simply don't know. All you can say is, "Well, this is what the Church has said was contained in tradition." But you don't know what else might be lurking in that wonderfully nebulous box called tradition. So, I ask again...did that box called tradition contain something called the Bodily Assumption of Mary back in AD 490, and if so, why didn't anyone on earth...except maybe some gnostic heretics...know it?

Hmmn, should I fall for the trap? Will I call up Mr. White, only to have him hang up on me like he did crimsoncatholic, and then, once crimsoncatholic couldn't respond, bash him for saying he was laughing at God's Word, when it was obviously not the case?

Or will I call in to give my specific examples, and then Mr. White, knowing where I'm headed, try to steer the conversation into satispassio or the bodily assumption of Mary?

I may have to wipe the dust off his books once again. How many examples of dishonesty or lack of scholarship should I come up with? Is 10 good enough?

I'll have to pray about this. I think the real question is, will this benefit anyone if I do call in, and will it glorify God?

Since 1993 or so Catholic Answers and Catholic apologists following them have made the distinction between "material" and "formal" sufficiency. This appeared first in Keating/Madrid's Aug 1993 "World Youth Day" debate with Jackson/Nemec, then in Madrid's Sept 1993 debate with White, then in the pages of This Rock Oct 1993 in that "White Man's Burden" article, in a side bar by James (Jimmy) Akin. Before this time there was no "material" or "formal" sufficiency distinction ever brought up in popular Catholic apologetics, although it was explained by Yves Congar's Tradition and Traditions in the 1960s. Professional Catholic theologians have known this distinction, and I think it is a fair one if you read Congar and his sections on the Fathers.

   However, the "material/formal" distinction is not found in Keating's 1988 classic Catholicism and Fundamentalism (for example). So since 1993 or so, Catholic apologists have placed an extra burden on Protestants to defend not just "material" but "formal" sufficiency. We can agree all Catholic doctrines are found in Scripture at least implicitly.

I don't know why you all give Ole' Jimbo White the time of day. I own and have read all of White's books regarding Catholicism, and think they lack scholarship at best and honesty at worst. In fact, I've found so many things misconstrued, not just with his books but with what he says in debates and on his blog, I simply dismiss him. Now, a lot of times he does make honest arguments, but they are laughable at best, usually.

He's the boy that cried wolf, in my opinion.

I've challenged James White to a lengthy debate in his chat room twice now (the first on any topic; the second on the definition of a Christian) and he refused twice (as did his associate James Swan). I also tried to enter his chat room a few months back and was kicked out after one day, even though I had done nothing wrong and was getting along fine with most in the room. I suggested that we do a program-long chat on his webcast to become more acquainted with each other as human beings and he turned that down too. I would go on his boat cruise, too. :-) Us poor apologists aren't used to such high luxury as ocean cruises!

He even ruled out any possibility of a live oral debate that he loves so much, when I asked him if he was unwilling to do that, for his part, too. All this stuff is a matter of record. It's all documented. He has, moreover, refused to respond to some dozen or more of my papers that critiqued his (several, recently).

So we see who has and has not the willingness to dialogue between us two . . .

I don't believe I will invest the effort to respond to all of your accusations against me here.

As usual. What else is new?

That way we can see how well they stand up to cross-examination, OK?

Knowing of White's love of the cross-ex format, I offered him more time to cross-examine me than I would have with him, in both my chatroom debate challenges, but it made no difference. The man debates those whom he wants to debate and ignores those he doesn't want to debate. It's as simple as that, really.

Speaking of the absurd and comical, White has posted yet another of his hyper-ridiculous hit pieces against me on his blog. I will refrain from providing it the dignity of a response this time. He's gotten enough attention that he doesn't deserve. If he goes after one of my papers or books and makes an actual argument (I know it's tough, but he's capable of rational argumentation if he puts his mind to it), I'll respond -- and he will in turn almost certainly ignore that, as is his standard, yawningly predictable practice.

The real question is: "why won't James White debate me in his chat room?" He continues to have this thing on his site. He even has a forum there just for debates, so he can't say that he is opposed to it in principle.

He's simply flat-out scared to do so. He wants no part of a double cross-ex format because his whole reputation is on the line and he would do very poorly.

" I have yet to have documented where I have misrepresented or misinterpreted Rome in my published writings and debates." Well gee James in the paragraph above you wrote this: "I reject Rome's pretensions to define Christ's body, and her wicked usurpation of the ultimate authority of God's Word in matters of faith and morals." Why would anybody think you are anti Catholic? I've never heard any pope say these things about another faith. You say you are a man of faith yet every day you have nothing but disrespectful things to say about the faiths you disagree with. You don't really get it do you. The Catholic Church, which I assume you are referring to, is not wicked. You are entitled to your opinion but for crying out loud, what are you going to say to God when asked about your constant disrespectful behavior. You are starting to sound like a person who doesn't know what the love of Christ is all about. Do you even understand that this kind of conduct is not Christ like? It seems to me you place more importance on disagreeing in the most disrespectful way than doing the things Christ told us to do. That comes straight from the bible I don't need the pope to understand that.

The Pope’s declaration yesterday, ironically, did demonstrate that what I had said about the progress and attitude of modern Catholic scholarship was true. This perceived disagreement and change in the Catholic church is the exact reason why the Pope felt it necessary to sign this document yesterday. He is more hard-line than John Paul II was and demonstrated this yesterday.

James said at one point that we were parting ways with historic conservative Protestant Evangelicalism. I disagree. Look at our theology. Go through the courses in The Theology Program. You will see that this is far from the truth. I, myself, and Dan as well, are both Evangelical Calvinistic Protestants. I am not ashamed of this title and I don’t think Dan is either. Simply because we are not as anti-Catholic as James is and don’t interpret Catholicism in the way he does, does not mean that we are leaving our Evangelical heritage in any way.

"So it appears clearly that there was a considerable part of the Lord's teachings, later taught in their turn by the Apostles, that were not written down and cannot therefore be found in the Bible. These teachings, however, were faithfully transmitted to the Christian communities" (p.7).
   
"If we want to be faithful to God's word, we have to accept both the written revelation and this other part of revelation that was handed down to us by word of mouth and preserved for all generations in the Tradition of the Church" (p.7).

"As the Bible is the word of God, we can safely conclude that God has warned us that His revelation is to be found not only in Holy Scripture, but also in the Tradition of the Church, transmitted from generation to generation by word of mouth, then also in the writings of early Christians such as St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Augustine, etc. Obviously, there can be no contradictions between Holy Scripture and Tradition, as both take their origin from the revelation of the one true God" (p.8).

"But when He Himself was silent about such things, which of us could say, It is this or that? Or if he venture to say it, how will he prove it? For who could manifest such vanity or recklessness as when saying what he pleased to whom he pleased, even though true, to affirm without any divine authority that it was the very thing which the Lord on that occasion refused to utter? Which of us could do such a thing without incurring the severest charge of rashness, a thing which gets no countenance from prophetic or apostolic authority? For surely if we had read any such thing in the books confirmed by canonical authority, which were written after our Lord's ascension, it would not have been enough to have read such a statement, had we not also read in the same place that this was actually one of those things which the Lord was then unwilling to tell His disciples, because they were unable to bear them" [Tractate 96].