On Twitter, a certain @johnamonaco—who is self-described as “Doctoral student in theology, seeking the true, good, and beautiful”—twetted, “Starting her off early” and posted a photo of the book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”
I replied, “Here’s another for her” and posted a photo of my book “In Consideration of Catholic Doctrines, Traditions and Dogmas.”
@johnamonaco replied, “I’ll stick with Pomazansky & Stăniloae, but thanks.”
I replied, “No worries. If I may: is believing in, accepting, Catholic dogma required
@johnamonaco replied, “Yes. But I am of the opinion that the ‘schism’ is largely a myth. There does not exist 2 different Churches. Read Afanasiev.”
I replied, “So then there was literally one second in 1950 before which one could have been saved without believing in/accepting Mary’s assumption but then one second later one could not be saved without believing in/accepting Mary’s assumption. Read Galatians 1:8.”
@johnamonaco replied, “Not really, as there is no conflict between the Assumption and Dormition. Only in polemical writings will you find that there is an irreconcilable difference. I’ll follow those who have actually done their research.”
A note before I reproduce my reply:
I was flummoxed by this reply, as you will see, but note that there are a few conflicts, in a manner of speaking, between the Assumption and Dormition.
The Dormition is one of the earliest feats of the church.
The Assumption is very much a latecomer.
The Dormition refers to the falling asleep as in the death of Mary.
The Assumption refers to the assumption that Mary was assumed into heaven.
The Dormition affirmed just that, that the early church knew that Mary had died.
The Assumption was made dogma in 1950 but did not specify if she died before the assumed assumption of not.
The Dormition is not dogma even though it was widely celebrated.
The Assumption is dogma even though it was not.
It is also fascinating that even though I showed him my book, he merely assumed and asserts that I have not actually done research.”
Here is my reply, “Friend, that has literally nothing to do with my comment. In short, in 1950, as at other times, Catholicism added to the gospel, added to what we must do to be saved, and therefore well, read Galatians 1:8.”
@johnamonaco’s reply was “That’s not even remotely true.”
Is not uncommon for people to say such things without bothering to elucidate how or why, in this case, my statement was supposedly “not even remotely true.”
I replied, “Just to help you to not be accused of offering mere assertions: that’s not even remotely true because of what?”
A few weeks later I replied thusly since he did not bother following up, “Well, I suppose you have left me to conclude that such is how to debunk the Vatican’s Catholicism in a couple of tweets—and a doctoral student in theology cannot seem to deal with these facts.”
And well, there you have it. He is well on his way to becoming a Catholic apologist who simply dismisses issues that are inconvenient to the Vatican’s assertions.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.