“actually contradictory to scripture...”
Nothing in the Catholic tradition is contradictory to scripture; that statement is an opinion. All Catholic doctrine is backed by scripture.
The actual issue is that Protestants have a different interpretation of the proof text scriptures that support catholic tradition; not that the scriptures that support the doctrine are missing.
Example:
The Catholic doctrine for Mary’s assumption is based upon
Revelation 12:1-2 is literally Mary
Genesis 3:15 the woman is literally Mary whose seed (Jesus) will crush the serpent by his death on the cross
and Luke 1:28 Mary is Full of Grace meaning saved by grace and without sin
The Church has always taught these interpretations of scripture because the tradition that has been handed on by the apostles interpreted it that way - Rome did not CHANGE any meanings. The reinterpretations came after the reformation; Catholic doctrine does not develop or change; it it is merely announced formally if heretical interpretations are being taught and it must defend it’s teaching.
The proper sequence is not:
Catholic tradition is not scriptural, therefore catholic doctrine is wrong.
Rather:
Protestant doctrine later changed, distorted and dropped the correct meanings of the proof scriptures for Catholic doctrines; therefore it teaches error because it uses a later man’s (Luther, Calvin, et al.) opinion to support its traditions of the new false meanings now handed on.
A protestant of course is free to distort scripture and insist theirs is right, but it is not OK to say that Catholic doctrine is not supported by scripture. That is the lie.
That's not possible. The woman in Revelation 12 is said to be a sign NOT a literal person. John talks of many literal things and people in heaven. The woman is NOT one of them.
>>Genesis 3:15 the woman is literally Mary<<
Not possible. It could only be referring to Eve or Israel. It is Zion (Israel) that will bring forth a son.
Isaiah 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. 8 "Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons.
The sign in Revelation 12 is the sign of Israel with the twelve stars a sign of the twelve tribes.
>>and Luke 1:28 Mary is Full of Grace<<
That has been shown to be false many times on these threads. Only Jesus and Stephen are said to be "full of grace" in scripture. There is no way that Luke 1:28 can be shown to mean "full of grace".
Most of Catholicism is NOT based on scripture and what scripture they do use is most often distorted or outright changed.
How foolish thsi statement is.. "not contrary".. How about extra Biblical then ?
Revelation 12:1-2 is literally Mary
What did the Apostle of John call it ? Seems to me he called it a SIGN ..
12 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars.
He never said it was Mary..because it was not ..unless Mary grew wings and flew off..
Rev 12 14 Butthe woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.
This was a Vision ..in this vision the Woman is Israel ...not Mary
Genesis 3:15 the woman is literally Mary whose seed (Jesus) will crush the serpent by his death on the cross
And indeed Eve's seed did ..that has nothing to do with Mary..other than she like all mankind needed a Savior
and Luke 1:28 Mary is Full of Grace meaning saved by grace and without sin
Really?? is grace like the gas you put in your tank so one and be filled with it??
The GREEK translation (NT written in Greek) says this
Young's Literal Translation
And the messenger having come in unto her, said, 'Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;'
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(28) Highly favoured.—The verb is the same as that which is translated, “hath made us accepted “in Ephesians 1:6; and, on the whole, this, which is expressed in one of the marginal readings, seems the truest. The plena gratiâ of the Vulgate has no warrant in the meaning of the word.
The Lord is with thee.—Better, the Lord be with thee, as the more usual formula of salutation, as in Ruth 2:4.
Meyer's NT Commentary Luke 1:28-29. Εἰσελθών] namely, ὁ ἄγγελος (see the critical remarks). Paulus erroneously puts it: “a person who came in said to her.”
κεχαριτωμένη] who has met with kindness (from God).[21] Well remarks Bengel: “non ut mater gratiae, sed ut filia gratiae.” See Luke 1:30; and on χαριτόω in general, see Ephesians 1:6On εὐλογ. σὺ ἐν γυναιξ. in the Textus receptus (but see the critical remarks), see Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 308]. It would be not a vocative, like κεχαριτωμένη, but a nominative, as the added σύ indicates: The Lord is with thee, blessed (κατʼ ἐξοχήν) art thou among women.
Luke 1:29. The Recepta (but see the critical remarks) would have to be explained: but she, when she looked upon him, was terrified at his saying, so that ἰδοῦσα only appears as an accessory element of the narrative, not as jointly a reason of her terror (in opposition to Bornemann, de Wette, and others), which would rather be simply ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ, as is shown by the text which follows καὶ διελογίζετο κ.τ.λ.
ποταπός] qualis, what sort of a: a question of wonder. Comp. on Mark 13:1 f. In accordance with its whole tenor raising her to so high distinction the greeting was to her enigmatical. [21] Observe the ingenious similarity of sound in the words χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη. Plays on words of a like kind are found among Roman Catholics with the contrasts of ave and Eva.
Rome needed a goddess to attract the pagan..mary became it
The Assuming of Mary became doctrine in 1950. It is a modern bastardization of Christianity, becoming something else.