[Carpe Cerevisi]

So you are admitting that the assumption of Mary is not something the apostles taught and that it’s part of “another gospel”! That’s a start.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm relying on the two thousand years of what Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium say as to what I believe. Your point was that if the Apostles didn't teach it then it wasn't legitimate and, as you say, "another gospel". I provided an example along your line of reasoning to help refute your point.

Are you saying you are content to follow an accursed gospel simply because you believe someone else does as well?

Again, no. Talk about a straw man! Only a fool believes two wrongs make a right. And how do you know that the apostles never taught about the Assumption of Mary? There were no relics around to be venerated.

[CynicalBear]

>>I provided an example along your line of reasoning to help refute your point.<<

No, you didn’t. You provided examples of others you believe do things that can’t be found taught by the apostles.

>>And how do you know that the apostles never taught about the Assumption of Mary?<<

Paul clearly stated that if someone came teaching something they didn’t it was to be considered “another gospel” and therefore “accursed”. I can find no evidence from their writings that they taught the assumption of Mary which is a large part of Catholic belief. It must therefore be considered “another gospel” and “accursed”.