Advice needed on how to make a good general confession.

But I’m not going to continue to argue with you about this.

Good, because you don’t have a leg to stand on. You would be wasting your time.

Riiight.

I agree that the Church has accorded to Mary things that have no direct basis in Scripture. The Church has never denied that; it believes that these things are divinely revealed through Tradition, handed down orally from Apostolic times. It is not my intention to spin that one way or another. It is what it is.

And there in is the problem.

The problem with "Tradition" is that it contradicts what is revealed in Scripture. We've been told that won't happen, yet we see it has in these discussions.

The other problem is the time interval with some of these dogmas involving Mary. There's a considerable gap between when the NT period closed and when the dogmas started showing up.

I know Roman Catholicism has a ton invested in Mary.

There's no way the RCC could ever admit to being in error over this as it would destroy the RCC.

So many Roman Catholics have sadly hung their hat on what Mary can do for them they'd be lost without it.

:)

Last I checked, Montfort was not in the New Testament, and he didn't write in Greek. So why are we judging his work by the standards of the Greek NT, exactly?

Anyway even those Greek terms have a similarly wide application. Right from my Liddell-Scott: μεσίτης, "mediator, umpire, arbitrator", παράκλητος: "legal assistant, advocate" They have a special meaning in the NT, sure, but they are definitely not automatically indicative of divinity.

I really don't get why it's so important to you to stuff the alleged divinity of Mary into our mouths. I'm telling you flat out: we don't believe it. It is heresy from the depths of Hell, and the only place I've ever actually heard it is in Protestant polemics. People like you are virtually the only ones keeping this heresy alive.

Last I checked, Montfort was not in the New Testament, and he didn't write in Greek. So why are we judging his work by the standards of the Greek NT, exactly?

I agree...he's not in the NT...nor is any support for much of what is claimed by Roman Catholicism for Mary as noted by one of your fellow Roman Catholics.

However, he was declared a Doctor of the Church so the Roman Catholic cannot readily dismiss him.

Anyway even those Greek terms have a similarly wide application. Right from my Liddell-Scott: μεσίτης, "mediator, umpire, arbitrator", παράκλητος: "legal assistant, advocate" They have a special meaning in the NT, sure, but they are definitely not automatically indicative of divinity.

As used in the context of the NT they are.

I really don't get why it's so important to you to stuff the alleged divinity of Mary into our mouths. I'm telling you flat out: we don't believe it. It is heresy from the depths of Hell, and the only place I've ever actually heard it is in Protestant polemics. People like you are virtually the only ones keeping this heresy alive.

I'm not stuffing anything into your mouth.

I'm pointing out the contradictions between Roman Catholic claims regarding Mary and the New Testament.

I agree that to call Mary the titles assigned to her is heresy.

Roman Catholics don't like it when Montfort and others are brought to light with their writings regarding Mary. I can understand why.

Roman Catholic "Tradition" of all kinds is compared to the New Testament. The OT and NT are the only inspired texts we have.

We've been told Roman Catholic "Tradition" does not contradict the NT.

I'm showing this is not the case as it in fact does contradict the NT.

That's the issue.

You certainly have made it clear that you have a problem with what Catholics believe about Mary. Which is fine. We are all free to have our own beliefs.

You are correct in saying we are all free to have our own beliefs. The question though, is do those beliefs contradict Scripture?

I think we're at the agree to disagree point in the discussion.....which I've enjoyed.