Huh? Every student of church history knows that auto-da-fe (Portuguese, I believe, for "act of faith") primarily refers to burning at the stake. Toss the Encyclopedia Britannica, please!
...over the weak tea of the deformed trend of the week clubs.
I knew you couldn't get through a post without these little insults. If I were as hypersensitive as some of the folk on this thread, I'd be whining about Protestant-bashing. That's okay though -- I've been known to toss around a snide remark or two as well. Yes, I have called you a bellower but I bet I'm not the only one!
It is good that those who feel that they must reject Christ's own Church...
I haven't rejected Christ's own church at all. What I reject is extra-Biblical teachings that have no foundation in the scriptures or in early church history. It was simony, clergy corruption, and the selling of indulgences which the Reformers rejected, not Martin Luther wanting to marry. In your favor, the worst of these things were cleaned up after Luther's time (and some on this thread will deny that they ever happened) but there still exists the extra-Biblical teachings.
Jesus did not have kind things to say about the Jewish leaders of His day for substituting their own "oral traditions" for scriptures. Read a good history of the early church, such as the works of Alfred Edersheim (Sketches of Jewish Social Life, for, example), and you'll see how frighteningly similar the claims of the Jewish leadership of Jesus' time are to the claims of the Catholic church today. In addition to scripture, they had their own oral tradition supposedly handed down from Moses that they and only they could interpret and enforce. Sound familiar? If Jesus was displeased at the Jewish leaders for their extra-Scriptural traditions and claims of infallibility, then what makes you think that He is pleased with the Catholic church for doing exactly the same thing?
Jesus and His followers constantly appealed to scripture as the ultimate source of God's truth. Note that the phrase, “It is written,” appears approximately 92 times in the New Testament, depending on the translation. Jesus appealed to scripture as the final authority when He disputed with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7. 10). He chided the religious leaders with such phrases as “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16; 42; 22:31), “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), and “is it not written in your law?” (John 10:34; Luke 10:25). Jesus shows the consequences of failing to follow scripture by saying, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures...” Not once did He ever tell anyone that they misunderstood traditions. Paul wrote that we are “not to go beyond what is written,” (1 Cor.4:6) for a very good reason.
Are traditions to be totally rejected then? The answer, you might be surprised to hear, is that they are to be rejected only if they conflict with the Bible. The very word "canon" means a measuring stick. The earliest Church Fathers recognized that scriptures were the final arbiter with questions of theology (I can provide you with tons of quotes if you wish).
How about the private interpretation of scripture? You might be surprised that I reject this to a certain extent, too. Scripture passages have to be interpreted in light of the entire body of scripture or false doctrines will arise -- anything from the Immaculate Conception to the "Name it and Claim it" lunacy. You'll no doubt point out how Peter wrote that “No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation” (2 Pt. 1:20) but if you'll break out your Greek commentaries and read the passage as a whole, you'll see that Peter is really saying that prophecies come from God and not from the private impulse of the prophet's mind.
In summary, the Bible was not written so that some secretive Magisterium could interpret it for us. It was written so that all could hear the word of God. John wrote, “these things I write to you” (1 John.1:4) and “these things I have written to you who believe.” (1 John.5:13). He didn't mention the Magisterium at all.
...the deform ... has developed a very jaundiced view as to Mary, denying doctrines like the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary and the perpetual virginity of Mary and, as to the last, engage in legendary feats of YOPIOS gymnastics to deny Mary her due.
First of all, I would have to say that you're right: Protestants have over-compensated for the Catholic obsession with Mary by paying less attention to her than is due.
Second, I would have to ask you what is Mary's due? She was a Godly woman who was the vehicle for the greatest gift ever given us, but that is no reason to offer her "hyperdulia" or to pray to her. Is there ever an instance in the Bible of someone praying to anyone besides God? No, there isn't. The closest we come is when Saul seeks the advice of the dead Samuel, and God labeled that as a sin.
What about doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the Assumption of Mary? Despite what Father Flanagan might have told you back in CCC, all of these beliefs were not held by the early church. This despite the claim of Trent for "the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
As one example, the Immaculate Conception of Mary (or sinless nature, take your choice) was denied not by just one or two of the church fathers, but by a whole herd of them! I'll be glad to provide you linked citations but, trust me, you won't like what you see. As for the Assumption of Mary, even Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 210) admits that belief in this "tradition" didn't appear until nearly the 7th century. I own this book, by the way, and have found it very enlightening.
Once you cut yourself loose from the anchor of scripture, there's no telling where you'll drift.
As my Irish grandmother often observed: Misery loves company. You cannot advance adequate reasons for Catholics to to join you.
Who's miserable? My salvation is assured by what Jesus did once and for all on the cross. I don't have to sit around worrying that I might have some unconfessed sin before I die and have to spend millions of years in Purgatory (another unscriptural invention) or, even worse, lose my salvation altogether.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified (Rom.8:29,30).
Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil.1:6).
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand (John 10:27-29).
He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor.1:8).
The message of these verses is plain. I have the joy of knowing that I go directly to be with Jesus when I die and that I'm not responsible for maintaining my salvation. God alone is responsible for my salvation and He has promised that no one, not even Satan, can snatch us out of His hand.
I've no doubt of your salvation but you're missing out on some of the joy that God has for you here on earth.
Bear in mind where you got the Bible that Luther shortened as to its Old Testament and vilified as to its New Testament in part (the Epistle of James, Revelation, etc.)
Sorry, but this is very erroneous history.
Celebrate the good that you will acknowledge among Catholics as we acknowledge the good to be found among you.
I do -- you guys were spot on the abortion issue before most Protestants even considered that it could be a problem. We had some catching up to do but I would say that we've done rather well following your model. I've marched with Catholics at abortion "clinics," contributed to Catholic causes, attended many a mass and, oddly enough, even had an investment account with Catholic Life (I think that's what it was called) about 10 years ago.
Catholics seem to often be better connected with family than Protestants (perhaps that's a cultural trait rather than a religious trait though). On the other hand, I doubt that the divorce rate among either Catholics or Protestants differs much from secular America though.
I've cringed at some of the comments made by Protestants on this and other threads (and I trashed Calvin rather seriously) but would argue that, in general, devout Protestants have a much better understanding of the scriptures than Catholics. I don't want to be mean or name names (this is the conciliatory part of my post, after all) but I have to say that, with the exception of sinkspur, the Catholics on this and similar threads have an abysmal knowledge of scripture and of church history. It's just, well, bad. I'll leave it at that.
My hope is that you'll get through the stumbling blocks of bad doctrine that the Catholic church has put in your way and that you'll have a clearer view of Christ himself.
If I'm wrong I'll buy you and CAtholic Family Association a round of drinks in heaven -- after you get out of Purgatory of course. If I'm right then you owe me two beers and an angel feather.
Oh, I forgot to mention, that I have found the same to be true about protestants having in reality an abysmal knowledge of scripture and (unrevised) history. So the feeling here is mutual. We both think that when our oppoenent comes to a different conclusion than our own that their knowledge is faulty.
God will have the last Word on this debate.