But you should -- because what is it that you know and they did not?
We let God's word speak for itself. The hierarchy does/has not due to the necessity that the Bible match Tradition. Naturally, this will lead to different conclusions and knowledge.
I agree that the "30,000 denominations" rap is reaching.
Thank you for saying so. :)
More to the point would be mainstream protestant denominations that have gone leftist on social and sexual morality teaching. They are not obscure sects or cults.
I would agree that they give real Protestants a bad name, and I wholly reject them. They have decided to go out on their own and reject the original principles of the original Reformers. IOW, they reject scripture. To anyone who does know the scriptures, like you, they are also easy to spot. So, when those who actually adhere to Reformed theology say something, you can easily distinguish it from what these others are saying. In the same way, when I hear a Catholic say something I know is contrary to official dogma, I know to dismiss it as to Catholicism.
Another example I'd give is free will denominations versus Calvinist denominations. These -- a few major denominations -- is what I have in mind.
Yes, that's fair. It is probably the weakest link in our claim to unity because it is a big deal. However, there is still a ton of theology on which we agree. I have made a very "loose" comparison to the differences between Catholics and the Orthodox.
Second, while you are all united on the four solas, I believe I have demonstrated sufficiently that the Catholic interpretation of what scripture has to say on the Eucharist, free will, the role of works, and apostolic succession is likewise following the scripture, and often with greater fidelity to the text than the Protestant reading. What gives?
Not sure what you mean. Given the gulf between our interpretations, it doesn't seem possible that we are both following the scriptures with fidelity. We each have our views, and there are plenty of other interpretations floating around out there that we would both immediately dismiss as wrong.
[On Rom. 3] The point is that the children and Christ are not excepted either.
Christ is specifically excepted, by name, and by PAUL! :) That has to count. According to scripture, children MAY be excepted, or they may be exempt due to the doctrine of impossibility. A reasonable case can be made. However, with Mary we have none of this.
FK: "No scripture covers Mary according to Catholic beliefs."
Oh, please. Genesis 3, Luke 1, Luke 11:27, John 2, John 19, Acts 2. Mary is an important part of the scripture quite apart from Catholic Marian devotions.
Sorry, I meant that no scripture covers Mary in terms of her sinlessness. BTW, where do you see Mary in Acts 2? Of course I would disagree that Mary appears in Gen. 3 :) It just doesn't fit the flow of thought.
The Treaditon is what produced the New Testament. If your reading does not match the consensus patrem, who knew the Tradition from Christ or nearly directly form Christ, your reading is no tthe intended meaning, -- like in the misunderstanding of Chrysostom in the post referred to by Kolokotronis above.
They have decided to go out on their own and reject the original principles of the original Reformers. IOW, they reject scripture.
Ah, so to reject the principles of the original reformers is to reject scripture? Why don't you say what you really mean, that the Reformers have their own unwritten tradition, and so a reading of the scripture that is contrary to that particular tradition is anathema? The Protestants who are for gay marriage would vehemently disagree that they reject the scripture, and they would argue their position form scripture. I know -- I argued with them.
Given the gulf between our interpretations, it doesn't seem possible that we are both following the scriptures with fidelity.
I do not think that the Protestants follow scripture with fidelity at all. On the issues of the Eucharist and on the role of works, the Catholics follow the letter of the scripture (see John 6, Romans 2, James 2) while the Protestants interpret and interpolate.
A reasonable case can be made. However, with Mary we have none of this
Neither Jesus or the children are excepted in Rom. 3. From other scripture we can make a reasonable case for Mary as well.
where do you see Mary in Acts 2
Acts 1:14, sorry.
I would disagree that Mary appears in Gen. 3 :) It just doesn't fit the flow of thought.
Who will crush the Serpent, and seed of which woman is He?