[CabinetMaker]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

• First, it doesn't say that one can't be saved "without Mary" (as though she were the Savior), but specifically "without Mary's intercession," that is her prayers.
• Second, jumping from the basic premise that Mary's prayers play a role in salvation to the erroneous conclusion that one must therefore "worship her" is a glaring non sequitur on your part. Learn how to think rationally.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Scripture says there is one intercessor between God and men. Scripture names that intercessor. That name is not Mary. So why is Mary's intercession required for anything?

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by lifeisgood

(There is idolatry in the Papal system so the second Commandment has been deleted. All remaining Commandments are therefore shifted along one count.)

For the millionth time---here, here, and here...



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker

Scripture says there is one intercessor between God and men. Scripture names that intercessor. That name is not Mary.

So, then, you wish to do away with all human intercession? No praying for the lost? No interceding for the salvation of others? After all, there's only one mediator, correct?

OR...you're merely engaging in yet another non sequitur.

So why is Mary's intercession required for anything?

Answered here, and here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Bright Raven]

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker

Scripture says there is one intercessor between God and men. Scripture names that intercessor. That name is not Mary. So why is Mary's intercession required for anything?

It's not.

[HisServant]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Answered here, and here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Pretty boring fairy tale and full of demonstrable lies.

The Roman Church's teachings on Mary have not been 'constant' as the article states... they have developed over the centuries.

If you told any of the original apostles what the current RCC taught about Mary, I believe they would run you out of town or try and stone you.

Christians are called to be witnesses... not invent new imaginings about what could have happened.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Bright Raven

It's not.

Already answered (Post #33).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by HisServant

Pretty boring fairy tale and full of demonstrable lies.

"demonstrable lies" = "whatever can be demonstrated to disagree with HS's theological preferences and opinions"

The Roman Church's teachings on Mary have not been 'constant' as the article states... they have developed over the centuries.

Answered here, and here. Please remedy your ignorance.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[CabinetMaker]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

So, then, you wish to do away with all human intercession? No praying for the lost? No interceding for the salvation of others? After all, there's only one mediator, correct?

OR...you're merely engaging in yet another non sequitur.

I can ask you to pray for me, you can ask me to pray for you and the prayers of a righteous man are powerful and effective. But this passage (James 5:16) is aimed at the living, not at the dead. I cannot ask Mary or any other deceased person to pray for me. Well, I suppose I could, but if I am going to bow my head in a prayer of intercession, why shouldn't I pray the way Jesus taught me to pray?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Answered here, and here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Those are not answers. Those are attempted justifications using titles that are not to be found in scripture. The church point to documents the church wrote to prove that the documents the church wrote are correct.

[HisServant]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

"demonstrable lies" = "whatever can be demonstrated to disagree with HS's theological preferences and opinions"

Answered here, and here. Please remedy your ignorance.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The ignorance in those articles is the fact that they avoid the white elephant in the room... and that elephant is the entire idea of the inspiration of scripture by the Holy Spirit.

At the end of the day, what the RCC is truly saying is that the Holy Spirit's inspiration was incomplete, therefore man has been given the license to develop upon it whatever it thinks the Holy Spirit was trying to say.

I say that attitude is disrespectful of the wishes and intent of the Holy Spirits inspiration. It is very plain to determine that scripture was inspired and we were also instructed to not go beyond what was taught and especially not to add to it..

It is in the nature of man to want to try and know and explain everything... as evidenced by Eve being deceived by the serpent and Adam being deceived by Eve. They weren't really going to die were they?

In the end, God's instructions about the fruit was all that needed to be done.. no further explanation of the particulars were warranted on God's part, nor deserved on Adam and Eve's part.

Such is the same with inspired scripture. God, through the Holy Spirit caused his words to be God breathed and written down by the Apostles and other disciples. That in an of itself should be sufficient for us.. God does not owe us any more details than what he provided.. and unlike Adam and Eve, we need to respect the Holy Spirit in that what he wrote was all we need to know to be saved.

So in the end, I hold the entire concept of doctrinal development to be an affront and disrespectful to God himself.

The same thing could be said about the doctrine of the trinity... the term trinity is not used in scripture.. the Holy Spirit did not see fit to invent a word and have the apostles explain what it was. Instead, the Holy Spirit related the persons of God in such a way that was appropriate for the audience... that is all. To expand the scriptures teachings beyond what God has exactingly and purposefully caused to be committed to writing is totally disrespectful and a repeat of Adam and Eves sin.

It truly is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in every sense of the word. Taking what is holy and sacred and making it mundane.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker

I can ask you to pray for me, you can ask me to pray for you and the prayers of a righteous man are powerful and effective. But this passage (James 5:16) is aimed at the living, not at the dead. I cannot ask Mary or any other deceased person to pray for me.

Merely a Red Herring on your part, since we weren't discussing the subject of whether or not the intercession of the Saints is a correct doctrine, but rather [1] whether or not invoking Mary's intercession involves "worship," and [2] whether or not it violates the "one mediator" principle. I have shown that neither is the case.

Those are not answers.

Not to your personal preference or satisfaction, perhaps. However, this says far more about your blinding anti-Catholicism than it ever could about the answers themselves.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[CabinetMaker]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Merely a Red Herring on your part, since we weren't discussing the subject of whether or not the intercession of the Saints is a correct doctrine, but rather [1] whether or not invoking Mary's intercession involves "worship," and [2] whether or not it violates the "one mediator" principle. I have shown that neither is the case.

Traditio post certainly carried with it a tone of worship towards Mary. I have spoken with a great many Catholics over the years (remember I was raised Catholic) and none of them draw a distinction between praying to Mary and praying to God. They do, in point of fact, worship her. Why?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Not to your personal preference or satisfaction, perhaps. However, this says far more about your blinding anti-Catholicism than it ever could about the answers themselves.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Contrary to your opinion, I am not blindingly anti-Catholic. There are certain doctrines of the Catholic church that I am vehemently opposed to, but that does not make me anti-Catholic. There are plenty of doctrines within the Protestant denominations that I am equally opposed to as well but that doesn't make me anti-Protestant either. Its your turn to engage in a non sequitur.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by HisServant

The ignorance in those articles is the fact that they avoid the white elephant in the room... and that elephant is the entire idea of the inspiration of scripture by the Holy Spirit.

Your assumption that the idea of doctrinal development somehow contradicts the inspiration of Scripture is merely a non sequitur.

At the end of the day, what the RCC is truly saying is that the Holy Spirit's inspiration was incomplete...

No, since

• contrary to your 16th-century Protestant assumption, Divine Revelation (God's Word) is not restricted to "the Bible alone,"
• the reality of doctrinal development can be seen right in the pages of the Scriptures themselves, and
• doctrinal development itself is the work of the Holy Spirit's continuing communication of infallible truth to the Church.

God, through the Holy Spirit caused his words to be God breathed and written down by the Apostles and other disciples. That in an of itself should be sufficient for us...

...unless God in fact intends to unfold his eternal truth to his Church progressively---as he always has.

God does not owe us any more details than than what he provided...

Agreed. And he has provided---and continues to provide---his Church with an ever greater and more mature understanding of his truth throughout the history of the Christian faith.

So in the end, I hold the entire concept of doctrinal development to be an affront and in reality, disrespectful to God himself.

You're certainly free to hold to any and all heterodox and unbiblical notions that pop into your head.

The same thing could be said about the doctrine of the trinity... the term trinity is not used in scripture.. the Holy Spirit did not see fit to invent a word and have the apostles explain what it was. Instead, the Holy Spirit related the persons of God in such a way that was appropriate for the audience... that is all. To expand the scriptures teachings beyond what God has exactingly and purposefully caused to be committed to writing is totally disrespectful and a repeat of Adam and Eves sin.

Already answered just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[HisServant]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Your assumption that the idea of doctrinal development somehow contradicts the inspiration of Scripture is merely a non sequitur.


No, since

• contrary to your 16th-century Protestant assumption, Divine Revelation (God's Word) is not restricted to "the Bible alone,"
• the reality of doctrinal development can be seen right in the pages of the Scriptures themselves, and
• doctrinal development itself is the work of the Holy Spirit's continuing communication of infallible truth to the Church.

...unless God in fact intends to unfold his eternal truth to his Church progressively---as he always has.


Agreed. And he has provided---and continues to provide---his Church with an ever greater and more mature understanding of his truth throughout the history of the Christian faith.


You're certainly free to hold to any and all heterodox and unbiblical notions that pop into your head.


Already answered just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Christ said his work was finished.. and I believe him.

Under no circumstances would the God of the bible leave up doctrinal development to a church (that is provable to be apostate) run by humans.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker

Traditio post certainly carried with it a tone of worship towards Mary.

The objective fact is that Catholic dogma expressly forbids the worship of anyone or anything besides God, nor does Catholic doctrine in any way teach or promote the worship of anyone or anything besides God. Honoring past Saints is not "worship."

I have spoken with a great many Catholics over the years (remember I was raised Catholic) and none of them draw a distinction between praying to Mary and praying to God.

How do you know what particular mental distinctions anyone did or did not draw? Here you're merely expressing your subjective impressions, rather than objective ideas. You're claiming knowledge that you simply could not possess---unless all of these Catholics straightforwardly stated to you, "I consider 'prayer' to Saints and 'prayer' to God to be identical"...? No? Then stick to what you actually know, and not what you "feel" about Catholic beliefs and behaviors.

They do, in point of fact, worship her.

A flatly false statement on your part, as already observed just above.

Contrary to your opinion, I am not blindingly anti-Catholic.

Sure you are---just as you've been conditioned to be by your favored anti-Catholic sectarian doctrinal tradition, according to whose dictates and assumptions you inevitably interpret the Bible and formulate your beliefs. One's personal theology is never formed in a vacuum, after all.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by HisServant

Christ said his work was finished...and I believe him.

So do I. Christ's work of Redemption on the cross is definitely complete.

Under no circumstances would the God of the bible leave up doctrinal development to a church...run by humans.

Well, let's see... He "left doctrinal development up to a church run by" the apostles, did he not? The apostles were certainly "humans," were they not? And the apostles taught infallibly, progressively, and authoritatively in the early Church, did they not? So much for your bare assumption.

(that is provable to be apostate)

Yet another entirely unsubstantiated assertion for HS. Moving on...



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+