Hello, your local “complete mental midget” here, on the road and far from home today, but not completely out of touch, anyway. While traveling I was sent this link to Pat Madrid’s Envoy forums. You will note that the thread begins with the ever-timid Phil Porvaznik doing his best to act as if he can respond to my criticisms of his position, but failing, badly. But that is not the interesting portion. Down below Porvaznik’s “same old same old” you will find “vincitveritas,” a writer who truly epitomizes the spirit of good ol’ Romanism. He starts off,
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.
Now, I am not anywhere near my library, and given that I am doing a video interview for airing nationally on the subject of Islam in the morning, I will not invest too much time with this kind of “correspondent.” The gentleman cites a 5th century apocryphal work that is well known to anyone who has done even the slightest bit of study into the Marian dogmas, one I made mention of in my small book on the Marian dogmas years ago. Specifically, he cites the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito. Now please note, he first claims this is actually the work of Melito, the bishop of Sardis, but seemingly later realizes he has blundered grossly (in the midst of calling me a “complete mental midget”) and tries to cover his error over. But the facts are the facts, and I wonder if any of his co-belligerent Romanists will call him to account for his actions? I doubt it. What vincitveritas needs to realize is that Melito of Sardis never knew anything of the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary; the source he cited is historically irrelevant and laughable. In fact, one of his own scholars of the subject has written,
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).
What is more, this very transitus literature was condemned as heretical by Gelasius, the bishop of Rome, at the end of the 5th century! What an amazing thing for a modern promoter of the myths of Rome’s Marian dogmas to rail like this while showing once again that “anything works as long as it promotes Rome,” something Roman Catholics have done over and over again in history. How many utter historical frauds have been used in the defense of Rome’s pretensions? Many, and here we see one being pressed into service again.
Many thanks, vincitveritas, for showing us that truth does indeed triumph, for it has triumphed over you and your attempt to misrepresent history in the promotion of a falsehood unknown to the early centuries of the Christian faith and unknown to inspired Scripture.
Since I am away from town today, I will direct you to Bill Webster for an excellent discussion of this particular topic.