Oldbear83 said:

---

With respect, comments that imply being the oldest denomination = superior quality get old fast.

---

First, the Catholic Church isn't a denomination. It is a historical fact that is the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ. Please cite an authentic historical reference, Google, Bing, Wiki, source that states otherwise.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Also, pretending that the one denomination which actually is also a city-state is not a concern is also not completely honest, intellectually.

---

I apologize. I don't understand the point of this comment. Please provide more context so that we can discuss this concern of yours.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And ignoring the pretty obvious fact that at least some Roman Catholics genuinely have gone a bit farther in their Marian devotion than Jesus would ever have recommended is concerning.

---

Well, with 1.4 billion Catholics in this world, I'm not surprised that some have taken Marian devotion too far. One, I'd have to argue your view is subjective and if you'd like to discuss specific devotions, please cite one (or two.)
Second, again with 1.4 billion Catholics, we have some knuckleheads in our Church. Many get divorced and remarried, vote for pro-abortion candidates, proponents of same-sex marriages, and/or participate in IVF.

That's an indictment of the members of the Church, not the Church itself.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an official document. And those prayers from the Glories of Mary and from the Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary are deemed "nihil obstat" and/or "Imprimatur" which essentially means the Catholic magisterium finds nothing in them to be against Catholic doctrine, faith, and morals.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your "sloppy" and really, really bad logic was your argument that since I agreed with Augustine on sola scriptura, it means I should agree with everything else he said. You aren't even getting this part right. Debating you is really fruitless. It's this kind of sloppy thinking that I really think prevents you from understanding the arguments, and why you think you can debate them when you really can't.

---

No, that's not what I'm saying. You are rushing past logic with your extreme biases in vain to force a conclusion.

• My point is HOW did Augustine believe in Sola Scriptura but still believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?
• How did he believe in the Perpetual Virginity, Mary's sinlessness, and the fact the Mother of God if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• How did he believe in Original Sin if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• How did he believe in the Deuterocanon was SCRIPTURE if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• Why do no other Church Fathers correct him or affirm him in this "belief"?
• How did he read the SAME bible as you and believe in all of these Catholic doctrines?
• Why did Jerome NOT correct him?

Be intellectually honest with yourself and ask these questions. This false belief doesn't logically make sense unless one takes these quotes out of context, which you and several other protestants have done.

Finaly, this "belief" is NOT held by respected protestant scholars like NT Wright, William Lane Craig, or Allister McGrath. Neither Luther nor Zwingli felt that Augustine held to Sola Scriptura as protestants see it. It has been construed by lesser minds to find a Church Father to hang their hat one. Sadly, the protestants can only back to the 16th before they can claim a "father."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Augustine clearly believed in sola scriptura as his writings indicate - but also believed in non-scriptural things, perhaps believing them to be in Scripture, because just as he clearly stated in his writings, HE IS NOT INFALLIBLE and is liable to err, and is liable to be corrected.

In the end, I have Augustine's direct statements affirming sola scriptura, and you have nothing where he believed that the Church had the same infallible authority. It's quite amazing that you are denying what Augustine is explicitly saying when it's right in front of you. I am fully convinced that NO evidence, no matter how undeniable, could ever change what you already decided on believing. I literally could give you a quote from a church father saying "Yes, I believe sola scriptura to be true" and you'd scramble to find a way to deny it. It really has gotten this bad with Roman Catholics. Your minds really are trapped in deception, and you need serious prayers.

---

No, again, what you've done is "proof text" to try to force something that is NOT there. The extremely limited quotes you provide are taken out of context.

Remember, the Jansenists also tried to use Augustine to support their heresy as well.

---

You're just not being intellectually honest with Augustine's statements. You're merely trying the "out of context" argument which isn't working. I don't know how Augustine can be more clear - "Scripture is the HIGHEST AUTHORITY WE MUST FOLLOW". You're really having to twist yourself in a pretzel to get out of it, because you just don't want to be honest.

---

You still didn't answer the questions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

You have been exposed for imposing YOUR beliefs on what the Chruch teaches. The Church cannot censure ever prayer provided.

Once again, the Church does not officially teach what you say.

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your "sloppy" and really, really bad logic was your argument that since I agreed with Augustine on sola scriptura, it means I should agree with everything else he said. You aren't even getting this part right. Debating you is really fruitless. It's this kind of sloppy thinking that I really think prevents you from understanding the arguments, and why you think you can debate them when you really can't.

---

No, that's not what I'm saying. You are rushing past logic with your extreme biases in vain to force a conclusion.

• My point is HOW did Augustine believe in Sola Scriptura but still believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?
• How did he believe in the Perpetual Virginity, Mary's sinlessness, and the fact the Mother of God if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• How did he believe in Original Sin if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• How did he believe in the Deuterocanon was SCRIPTURE if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• Why do no other Church Fathers correct him or affirm him in this "belief"?
• How did he read the SAME bible as you and believe in all of these Catholic doctrines?
• Why did Jerome NOT correct him?

Be intellectually honest with yourself and ask these questions. This false belief doesn't logically make sense unless one takes these quotes out of context, which you and several other protestants have done.

Finaly, this "belief" is NOT held by respected protestant scholars like NT Wright, William Lane Craig, or Allister McGrath. Neither Luther nor Zwingli felt that Augustine held to Sola Scriptura as protestants see it. It has been construed by lesser minds to find a Church Father to hang their hat one. Sadly, the protestants can only back to the 16th before they can claim a "father."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Augustine clearly believed in sola scriptura as his writings indicate - but also believed in non-scriptural things, perhaps believing them to be in Scripture, because just as he clearly stated in his writings, HE IS NOT INFALLIBLE and is liable to err, and is liable to be corrected.

In the end, I have Augustine's direct statements affirming sola scriptura, and you have nothing where he believed that the Church had the same infallible authority. It's quite amazing that you are denying what Augustine is explicitly saying when it's right in front of you. I am fully convinced that NO evidence, no matter how undeniable, could ever change what you already decided on believing. I literally could give you a quote from a church father saying "Yes, I believe sola scriptura to be true" and you'd scramble to find a way to deny it. It really has gotten this bad with Roman Catholics. Your minds really are trapped in deception, and you need serious prayers.

---

No, again, what you've done is "proof text" to try to force something that is NOT there. The extremely limited quotes you provide are taken out of context.

Remember, the Jansenists also tried to use Augustine to support their heresy as well.

---

You're just not being intellectually honest with Augustine's statements. You're merely trying the "out of context" argument which isn't working. I don't know how Augustine can be more clear - "Scripture is the HIGHEST AUTHORITY WE MUST FOLLOW". You're really having to twist yourself in a pretzel to get out of it, because you just don't want to be honest.

---

You still didn't answer the questions.

---

I already essentially answered them in an earlier post - Augustine himself said that HE IS PRONE TO ERR and should not be listened to over Scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And ignoring the pretty obvious fact that at least some Roman Catholics genuinely have gone a bit farther in their Marian devotion than Jesus would ever have recommended is concerning.

---

"Some" Roman Catholics? Their marian idolatry and heresy is rooted in their DOGMA and practice. Their catechism calls Mary "THE ALL HOLY ONE". Roman Catholicism is NOT Christian. It's not a "denomination" of Christianity. You really are undercutting the problem.

---

This title of "all-holy" emphasizes her unique role in salvation history and the extraordinary graces she received from God. Jesus is the source of her holiness. It does not diminish him, nor elevate her to a deity.

Please cite an authentic reference source that states that Catholicism is NOT Christian.

How do we know that you are a Christian? What church do you go to again?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

You have been exposed for imposing YOUR beliefs on what the Chruch teaches. The Church cannot censure ever prayer provided.

Once again, the Church does not officially teach what you say.

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

I've imposed NOTHING about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I've given full, reasoned arguments and citations. You are foolishly limiting the concept of "teaching" to merely what's written in your official documents. Any rational, intellectually honest person KNOWS this is complete BS. You "teach" by what your leaders (even popes) say and do, and by your fully sanctioned and endorsed marian prayers. It's sad how dishonest you have to be to protect your Church from all the facts I'm presenting.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I already essentially answered them in an earlier post - Augustine himself said that HE IS PRONE TO ERR and should not be listened to over Scripture.

---

Logically, how could he get ALL those items wrong, but sola scriptura right? How did Jerome not correct him?

Your false belief crumbles under inspection and authentic reading of ALL his works, not selective texts to taken out of context.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And ignoring the pretty obvious fact that at least some Roman Catholics genuinely have gone a bit farther in their Marian devotion than Jesus would ever have recommended is concerning.

---

"Some" Roman Catholics? Their marian idolatry and heresy is rooted in their DOGMA and practice. Their catechism calls Mary "THE ALL HOLY ONE". Roman Catholicism is NOT Christian. It's not a "denomination" of Christianity. You really are undercutting the problem.

---

This title of "all-holy" emphasizes her unique role in salvation history and the extraordinary graces she received from God. Jesus is the source of her holiness. It does not diminish him, nor elevate her to a deity.

Please cite an authentic reference source that states that Catholicism is NOT Christian.

How do we know that you are a Christian? What church do you go to again?

---

Only GOD is the ALL HOLY ONE.

You are such a fool to think that it's okay to call any human being that, for ANY reason. Good grief.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I already essentially answered them in an earlier post - Augustine himself said that HE IS PRONE TO ERR and should not be listened to over Scripture.

---

Logically, how could he get ALL those items wrong, but sola scriptura right? How did Jerome not correct him?

Your false belief crumbles under inspection and authentic reading of ALL his works, not selective texts to taken out of context.

---

He and Jerome got things wrong, as did many church fathers, because they're FALLIBLE MEN.

It really isn't that difficult.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I've imposed NOTHING about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I've given full, reasoned arguments and citations. You are foolishly limiting the concept of "teaching" to merely what's written in your official documents. Any rational, intellectually honest person KNOWS this is complete BS. You "teach" by what your leaders (even popes) say and do, and by your fully sanctioned and endorsed marian prayers. It's sad how dishonest you have to be to protect your Church from all the facts I'm presenting.

---

I am really not impressed with your intellectual honesty. I know many protestants that will at least argue about what the Church truly teaches, not what you THINK the Church teaches.

At least you tried to do that with your "ALL HOLY ONE" comment. You misunderstand it, but at least you finally used a real argument. Not weak, protestant tropes that you find in an anti-Catholic book.

At least try to hate the Church for what she really is ...

As the Venerable Fulton J Sheen said, "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

A marian idolater telling ME to repent. So rich.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I've imposed NOTHING about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I've given full, reasoned arguments and citations. You are foolishly limiting the concept of "teaching" to merely what's written in your official documents. Any rational, intellectually honest person KNOWS this is complete BS. You "teach" by what your leaders (even popes) say and do, and by your fully sanctioned and endorsed marian prayers. It's sad how dishonest you have to be to protect your Church from all the facts I'm presenting.

---

I am really not impressed with your intellectual honesty. I know many protestants that will at least argue about what the Church truly teaches, not what you THINK the Church teaches.

At least you tried to do that with your "ALL HOLY ONE" comment. You misunderstand it, but at least you finally used a real argument. Not weak, protestant tropes that you find in an anti-Catholic book.

At least try to hate the Church for what she really is ...

As the Venerable Fulton J Sheen said, "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

---

Your intellectual dishonesty is in limiting "teach" to being only "that which is written in an official document" and in your belief that OFFICIAL PAPAL STATEMENTS and the FULL ENDORSEMENT AND SANCTION of marian prayers does NOT constitute "teaching".

Do you honestly, honestly think people are buying this?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I already essentially answered them in an earlier post - Augustine himself said that HE IS PRONE TO ERR and should not be listened to over Scripture.

---

Logically, how could he get ALL those items wrong, but sola scriptura right? How did Jerome not correct him?

Your false belief crumbles under inspection and authentic reading of ALL his works, not selective texts to taken out of context.

---

He and Jerome got things wrong, as did many church fathers, because they're FALLIBLE MEN.

It really isn't that difficult.

---

Apparently, it is for you. Logically, it's not possible that he, one of the smartest men to walk the earth, read the same bible as you, believed in sola scriptura, but yet got EVERYTHING else wrong.

Do you see the arrogance of your implication? Not even today's brightest protestant scholars believe this nonsense. But, YOU got it right. Good luck with that.

How can I attend your church one week? I'd love to see what goes on there.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

A marian idolater telling ME to repent. So rich.

---

That would be an ad hominin attack. I don't worship Mary. When in doubt, start attacking!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I already essentially answered them in an earlier post - Augustine himself said that HE IS PRONE TO ERR and should not be listened to over Scripture.

---

Logically, how could he get ALL those items wrong, but sola scriptura right? How did Jerome not correct him?

Your false belief crumbles under inspection and authentic reading of ALL his works, not selective texts to taken out of context.

---

He and Jerome got things wrong, as did many church fathers, because they're FALLIBLE MEN.

It really isn't that difficult.

---

Apparently, it is for you. Logically, it's not possible that he, one of the smartest men to walk the earth, read the same bible as you, believed in sola scriptura, but yet got EVERYTHING else wrong.

Do you see the arrogance of your implication? Not even today's brightest protestant scholars believe this nonsense. But, YOU got it right. Good luck with that.

How can I attend your church one week? I'd love to see what goes on there.

---

You're still arguing a fallacy.

And no one is saying he got EVERYTHING ELSE wrong. You're presenting it that way to promote your fallacy.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

A marian idolater telling ME to repent. So rich.

---

That would be an ad hominin attack. I don't worship Mary. When in doubt, start attacking!

---

Learn what ad hominem means (and how it's spelled). If that's an ad hominem, then so is your charge of calumny.

Evasion, and more than a smattering of dishonest arrogance.

Yes, the Roman Catholics ARE one of many denominations in the Christian Church.

Beyond that, I will say no more for now, because I perceive Pride would take the conversation to unhealthy places.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your "sloppy" and really, really bad logic was your argument that since I agreed with Augustine on sola scriptura, it means I should agree with everything else he said. You aren't even getting this part right. Debating you is really fruitless. It's this kind of sloppy thinking that I really think prevents you from understanding the arguments, and why you think you can debate them when you really can't.

---

No, that's not what I'm saying. You are rushing past logic with your extreme biases in vain to force a conclusion.

How did he believe in the Perpetual Virginity, Mary's sinlessness, and the fact the Mother of God if he believed in Sola Scriptura?

---

Augustine did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. He clearly believed only Jesus was sinless:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)


Augustine did believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, because that's how he interpreted Ezekiel chapter 44.


So none of this goes against his belief in sola scriptura at all; in fact it's perfectly consistent with it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

A marian idolater telling ME to repent. So rich.

---

A hypocritical Pharisee who practices bibliolatry telling anyone to repent is rich.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

So there's essentially your answer: it's not worship for Mary, but doing the exact same things may or may not be worship for all else.

That's what's called a double standard. That's what twisting yourself into a pretzel for your argument to work looks like. Your argument rests on pure fallacy, and so it has failed. How can any intellectually honest person continue on with this belief knowing this? Do you REALLY buy what you're trying to sell yourself?

And MY GOD - if you CAN'T say that it's WORSHIP when someone bows to, prays to, and kisses a statue of Baal IN CHURCH, and calls it "THE ALL HOLY ONE" and says that eternal salvation comes through Baal, and all the other things I listed, then I'm sorry, I'm just going to state it like it is - you are foolish and completely LOST. The only hope I have for you is that you don't actually believe this, you're aware that it's worship and that it's wrong - but you HAVE TO argue it to save your beliefs about Mary. But who do you think you'd be fooling? Do you really think you can fool God?

Regarding the addressing of the topics one at a time - apparently, you just can't comprehend that it is completely irrelevant to argue the points individually. The point was whether the SAME SET of things that you do for Mary is "worship" if you do it for anyone or anything else other than Mary. It would make no difference how you argue them individually - the question will just become whether that individual argument applies for any entity other than Mary. For example, you can try to argue a justification for the bowing and praying to statues of Mary, but the question will become would that same justification work for any entity I want to make an image of, and pray and bow to. The answer is the same for the list as a whole as it is for each item individually, regardless of how you answer it. Please try to understand this so you'll stop repeating your same tired argument that I'm avoiding this.

The answer to the question is as clear as day for any Christian, whether you treat the list as a whole or individually - YES, it's worship, and NO, it is not okay with God. If you really can't recognize why putting statues of something IN CHURCH and bowing in reverence, kissing, and praying to it is wrong, even when the 2nd commandment is staring at you in the face - then to be frank, you're completely bewitched by the Devil.

---

---

Sadly, you still don't want to understand what idolatry is.

Nothing is wrong with making statues or images of someone or something. Nothing is inherently evil or wrong in kissing or bowing to something or someone as long the individual does NOT worship that object or sees that object as a god.

---

You're only making yourself look foolish with responses like this. Making statues or images of something and bowing/praying to it and kissing it, especially IN CHURCH like you do, is expressly hated by God. It'll never cease to amaze me how you guys can convince yourself the second commandment doesn't exist.

Ultimately, what you're saying is that I can put up a statue of Baal in Church and bow and pray to it and kiss it, and that's all okay as long I don't consider Baal to be God. Do you HONESTLY think that makes it okay with God? Stupid, just SO stupid. You and curtpenn are so steeped in deception that it really hurts to read what you write.

---

You are so steeped in stupidity and misrepresentation that you should change your avatar to the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz. It would be entertaining at least as you go along singing If I Only Had a Brain while you strew more straw in your path.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And ignoring the pretty obvious fact that at least some Roman Catholics genuinely have gone a bit farther in their Marian devotion than Jesus would ever have recommended is concerning.

---

"Some" Roman Catholics? Their marian idolatry and heresy is rooted in their DOGMA and practice. Their catechism calls Mary "THE ALL HOLY ONE". Roman Catholicism is NOT Christian. It's not a "denomination" of Christianity. You really are undercutting the problem.

---

Were you perhaps molested by a Roman Catholic priest as a child? That would explain so much.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And ignoring the pretty obvious fact that at least some Roman Catholics genuinely have gone a bit farther in their Marian devotion than Jesus would ever have recommended is concerning.

---

"Some" Roman Catholics? Their marian idolatry and heresy is rooted in their DOGMA and practice. Their catechism calls Mary "THE ALL HOLY ONE". Roman Catholicism is NOT Christian. It's not a "denomination" of Christianity. You really are undercutting the problem.

---

Were you perhaps molested by a Roman Catholic priest as a child? That would explain so much.

---

The only ones being molested here are the ones being violated with damnable errors by their own church.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

So there's essentially your answer: it's not worship for Mary, but doing the exact same things may or may not be worship for all else.

That's what's called a double standard. That's what twisting yourself into a pretzel for your argument to work looks like. Your argument rests on pure fallacy, and so it has failed. How can any intellectually honest person continue on with this belief knowing this? Do you REALLY buy what you're trying to sell yourself?

And MY GOD - if you CAN'T say that it's WORSHIP when someone bows to, prays to, and kisses a statue of Baal IN CHURCH, and calls it "THE ALL HOLY ONE" and says that eternal salvation comes through Baal, and all the other things I listed, then I'm sorry, I'm just going to state it like it is - you are foolish and completely LOST. The only hope I have for you is that you don't actually believe this, you're aware that it's worship and that it's wrong - but you HAVE TO argue it to save your beliefs about Mary. But who do you think you'd be fooling? Do you really think you can fool God?

Regarding the addressing of the topics one at a time - apparently, you just can't comprehend that it is completely irrelevant to argue the points individually. The point was whether the SAME SET of things that you do for Mary is "worship" if you do it for anyone or anything else other than Mary. It would make no difference how you argue them individually - the question will just become whether that individual argument applies for any entity other than Mary. For example, you can try to argue a justification for the bowing and praying to statues of Mary, but the question will become would that same justification work for any entity I want to make an image of, and pray and bow to. The answer is the same for the list as a whole as it is for each item individually, regardless of how you answer it. Please try to understand this so you'll stop repeating your same tired argument that I'm avoiding this.

The answer to the question is as clear as day for any Christian, whether you treat the list as a whole or individually - YES, it's worship, and NO, it is not okay with God. If you really can't recognize why putting statues of something IN CHURCH and bowing in reverence, kissing, and praying to it is wrong, even when the 2nd commandment is staring at you in the face - then to be frank, you're completely bewitched by the Devil.

---

---

Sadly, you still don't want to understand what idolatry is.

Nothing is wrong with making statues or images of someone or something. Nothing is inherently evil or wrong in kissing or bowing to something or someone as long the individual does NOT worship that object or sees that object as a god.

---

You're only making yourself look foolish with responses like this. Making statues or images of something and bowing/praying to it and kissing it, especially IN CHURCH like you do, is expressly hated by God. It'll never cease to amaze me how you guys can convince yourself the second commandment doesn't exist.

Ultimately, what you're saying is that I can put up a statue of Baal in Church and bow and pray to it and kiss it, and that's all okay as long I don't consider Baal to be God. Do you HONESTLY think that makes it okay with God? Stupid, just SO stupid. You and curtpenn are so steeped in deception that it really hurts to read what you write.

---

You are so steeped in stupidity and misrepresentation that you should change your avatar to the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz. It would be entertaining at least as you go along singing If I Only Had a Brain while you strew more straw in your path.

---

Thank you!

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

A marian idolater telling ME to repent. So rich.

---

A hypocritical Pharisee who practices bibliolatry telling anyone to repent is rich.

---

Ahh, the return of the one who never has an argument, who just thinks his anger and hate actually moves the dial.

Clang on, empty vessel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

A marian idolater telling ME to repent. So rich.

---

A hypocritical Pharisee who practices bibliolatry telling anyone to repent is rich.

---

Ahh, the return of the one who never has an argument, who just thinks his anger and hate actually moves the dial.

Clang on, empty vessel.

---

I take my cues and methodology from you. Only someone so blinded by their hatred as you are could possibly believe anything you say moves the needle for anyone other than your father, Satan.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Evasion, and more than a smattering of dishonest arrogance.

Yes, the Roman Catholics ARE one of many denominations in the Christian Church.

Beyond that, I will say no more for now, because I perceive Pride would take the conversation to unhealthy places.

---

For the first 1,000 years of its existence, the Christian Church did not have denominations. That first changed in 1054 A.D., and again in 1517 A.D. Perhaps denominationalism is an aberration that should not exist.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

I'm no expert, but as far as I know the idea of Mary as Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix is what's known as pious opinion, not infallible teaching. In any case, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Marian devotees affirm that Christ's suffering and death are "not only sufficient but 'superabundant' satisfaction for human guilt." To say that Mary is the way to salvation means that she is the way to Christ. Likewise, calling her the All Holy One simply means that she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

I'm no expert, but as far as I know the idea of Mary as Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix is what's known as pious opinion, not infallible teaching. In any case, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Marian devotees affirm that Christ's suffering and death are "not only sufficient but 'superabundant' satisfaction for human guilt." To say that Mary is the way to salvation means that she is the way to Christ. Likewise, calling her the All Holy One simply means that she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

---

The declaration is made, fully sanctioned and endorsed by your Church, that Mary's intercession is necessary for salvation. There is NO created human being that has been given this role. This most certainly is NOT Christianity. If you honestly think there is justification for this, or even suggest that a human being is the "way to Jesus", and that there's justification for calling a created human being THE ALL HOLY ONE, then you're not talking about Christianity. It's that simple.

Quote:

---

To say that Mary is the way to salvation means that she is the way to Christ.

---

Except she is not. Not during his earthly ministry, not afterwards. The Theotokos is a supreme example of a human accepting God's will for his or her life. She was chosen by God to bring the Savior into the world. She, along with the rest of the great cloud of witnesses pray for us. The greatest woman who ever lived, who all generations call blessed for doing what she did.

But she is not a co-mediatrix, for "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus," (1st Timothy 2:5).

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

.... she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

---

perhaps you didn't read those quotes from earlier:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)


Is this going to be YET ANOTHER instance of you guys denying facts that are right in front of your face?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

.... she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

---

perhaps you didn't read those quotes from earlier:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)


Is this going to be YET ANOTHER instance of you guys denying facts that are right in front of your face?

---

I read them. What kind of sin do you think he's talking about?

God Agrees To Let Trump Into Heaven If He Repents Of His Sin And Trusts In Jesus Christ Alone For Salvation https://t.co/rmOzosZm15 pic.twitter.com/1fG1TPfnYn

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 20, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

.... she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

---

perhaps you didn't read those quotes from earlier:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)


Is this going to be YET ANOTHER instance of you guys denying facts that are right in front of your face?

---

I read them. What kind of sin do you think he's talking about?

---

Oh boy, here we go. Let the usual twisting/dodging/semantic double talk begin.

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator.."