Oh yeah, how quickly I forget.
If any respected or notable Protestant makes a statement with which evangelicals disagree, he is "human and not immune from error." However, if a Catholic makes a statement with which evangelicals disagree, he is "following false and unbiblical teachings." But what interests me most is that the only possible conclusion one can make is that evangelicals ALONE are always correct (presumably because evangelicals KNOW how to read and interpret scripture, they are somehow immune to error).
Apparently you believe "human and not immune from error" and "following false and unbiblical teachings" are mutually exclusive. I don't. Luther was human and not immune from error and therefore following false and unbiblical teachings.
Later you wrote that "But what interests me most is that the only possible conclusion one can make is that evangelicals ALONE are always correct...they are somehow immune to error". I stated that Luther was not immune from error.
I hold no human to so lofty a position, whether that is Calvin, Luther or Mary. God uses whom He wishes, how He wishes to His glory whether that is Paul carrying the good news or Mary carrying the Son of Man. He uses you and I to carry his message to the world and He uses that message to open spiritual eyes to see His glory.
why are all those that aren't Catholic assumed to be Evangelicals?
Frankly, I read the Bible and yes, it can be understood if you have the correct tools(which most people do NOT have). If you have a Strong's Concordance, and also an Inter-linear Hebrew/Greek Bible is also a wonderful thing to use, as the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and the New Testament was originally written in Greek. The interlinear has direct translations from both languages word-for-word and it also has the Strongs Concordance numbers so that the terms can be looked up individually to get the most accurate meaning of each individual word. So when people are referring to actually STUDYING the Bible, it really isn't just sitting down an reading it. It's a very intensive study.
Why does it always need to be slam against one or the other? I am what I call a "recovering Catholic". I finally dealt w/ the fact that there were too many man-made doctrines that I couldn't find based in the Bible. And that isn't a statement to incite Catholics to rioting - it was a personal choice on my part. Do I believe in the "holiness" of Mary? No, I don't. I also don't "assume" things about the Bible that aren't written, such as the connection between Mary being elevated to such heights and being better than Eve, even in her purest state. I think that is totally stretching a situation and if you were to actually look at the words from Elizabeth in context, it wouldn't not be all women, past and future. Why is that assumed? Blessed amongst women doesn't deem anything but present tense. Just my opinion.
That's all true, of course (sounds like you missed the thread on the latest Baptist break-up or you'd gotten it all out of your system earlier.)