You might disagree with us less if you understood the following:
1. We do not worship Mary. We only ask her to intercede on our behalf.
Actually, you DO “worship” her, you’re just ever so careful to make the distinction between dulia and hyper-dulia.
2. Our basis for papal infallability is Biblical. It’s an interpretation, but it is based on Scripture.
I always love this one. Using sola scriptura to undermine sola scriptura. Priceless :)
3. Our basis for the Eucharist is also Biblical, but IMO, it’s not at all an interpretation. It’s a hard, cold fact straight from Christ Himself.
See how quickly interpretation suddenly becomes cold, hard, undeniable fact when you make the error in #2?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ignorance of your statements is staggering. Let’s go into this a bit deeper...shall we?
1. Intercessory prayer is Biblical. Honoring the Mother of Christ is simply following his instructions. Funny how little of the Bible some protestants actually know...had you read the Bible, you’d realize this.
2. Papal infallibility is scriptural. Our use of scripture to support what we do has nothing to do with the silly protestant notion of sola scriptura...the ENTIRE Mass is scripture based.
3. Prove to me that the Eucharist is non-scriptural.
Have you even been to Mass? Why bash something if you’ve failed to do first-hand research?
I've read it. I see nothing supporting the notion of praying to the departed or requesting they pray on our behalf (let alone venerate them). I don't need another intercessor in Heaven. I have one in Jesus Christ, and through Him I have direct access to the Holy of Holies.
For the immense amount of attention given to Mary by the Roman Catholic Church, I find it rather odd that there is pretty much no mention of her at all outside of the four gospels.
BTW, I made a typo in the first post. It should have read "you’re just ever so careful to make the distinction between latria, dulia and hyper-dulia."
2. Papal infallibility is scriptural. Our use of scripture to support what we do has nothing to do with the silly protestant notion of sola scriptura...the ENTIRE Mass is scripture based.
So is snake handling :)
Papal infallibility is most certainly not scriptural. Paul proved that early on. Moreover, the ultimate appeal for papal infallibility always returns to Scripture, and the validity of the appeal from the Roman Catholic standpoint always rests upon the self-reinforcing argument of papal infallibility. Scripture says the Pope is infallible. How do we know it said so? Because the Pope said so. How do we know he's right? Because Scripture says the Pope is infallible. And so on...
3. Prove to me that the Eucharist is non-scriptural.
Doesn't work that way, friend. I'm claiming the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist not in Scripture. If you want I can post the entirety of Scripture here and say, "See...it's not there." But nobody wants to scroll that much. Your burden friend, not mine.
I don't even need to go that far though. The doctrine of transubstantiation contradicts the definition of Chalcedon by conferring divine attributes upon Christ's human flesh.
Have you even been to Mass? Why bash something if you’ve failed to do first-hand research?
Yes...and I will never attend one again if I can help it. From a doctrinal standpoing I find it to be gross heresy.