Yes, and that is why I have continued to ask for scripture references. I can believe or rationalize anything and make it appear somehow attached or apart of my Christian faith...many counterfeits do that quite well....but in more serious matters of faith if it does not stand the test of scripture then it is just another matter of someones opinion....admirable as it may be...it does not pass the truth test. Praying to Mary, asking someone who is dead to intercede in prayer from the other side is too close to that of conjuring up spirits IMO and we all know how Saul fared for his effort to do so...it's not as though he was asking for a evil entity to appear...he was seeking just the same... someone from the other side.
I am not as interested in debating someones opinion on how or why some might see Mary in the light they do....but I have determined thus far there just isn't scripture to support the authors statements....and that of so many other catholic writers who place undue emphasis and actually encourage making Mary into an 'image' they adore and worship. As if somehow because it's made in the image of Mary it's ok to do so...or any of the other Saints who have special authority of assignments within the catholic faith. It looks like idolatry,... the people who follow these images look like they are worshiping,.... and those who bow before them likewise.....so what else could it be but that??? Idol worship...which God clearly states not to do or follow the practices of the pagans who do that as well.
Saul himself thought that conjuring the dead was wrong. he had passed laws against it.
WE believe, as our Lord says, He is the God of the living, for all live to Him. We also believe, As St Peter says, that Jesus set people free from Hell. And we further believe, as the Gospels report that Moses and Elijah -- and not their "shades" appeared with Jesus at the Transfiguration.
We are Biblical and do not hold the unBiblical belief that those who have fallen asleep are dead.
And yet we are accused night and day of not taking the Bible for our guidance!
but I have determined thus far there just isn't scripture to support the authors statements...
Not only is there plenty of Scriptural evidence, as just referred to, to dispute your bizarre notion that Mary is dead, but the rest of the evidence AGAINST what the Church does is as valueless as the contention, flying RIGHT in the face of what our Lord Himself said, that Mary is dead.
Consequently, the apparently reasonable, though one-sided in its attitude toward the Scripture v. Sacred Tradition debate, stand you take is bankrupted at its inception.
... but in more serious matters of faith if it does not stand the test of scripture then it is just another matter of someones opinion.
That itself is a matter of opinion. Why is YOUR opinion about the role of Scripture in establishing doctrine more valid than any other?
One of the principle shuck-and-jive moves our opponents make is to adopt and change their hermenetuic principles to suit the question at hand.
One of the soi-disant "sola scriptura gang said that God does not hide Himself.
Of course I immediately cited Isaiah, "truly you are a God who hides Himself."
In rebuttal, I was told that that changed with the "work of Christ." I find no Scripture to PROVE that, and none was offered.
But John of Damascus argues that with the coming of Christ (as I think I said earlier in this thread) since matter has born the perfect icon (as Paul says) of God, matter's ability to 'represent' has been lifted up.
But evidently THAT change wrought by the Incarnation is not discussed and not accepted among our opponents.
But why not? What in Scripture makes one change known and another denied?
From here, from the view of someone who was once not fully Catholic but entered into the Church (12/26/94), these cavils seem artificial and forced. One non-Catholic party may say one thing and another another. (You should have seen the donnybrook a few months back on Arminianism!)
Yet when a Catholic looms up on the horizon, these folks unite in the perspicuity of Scripture as long as the Catholic is around. Then, as soon as he goes, they're back to their ceaseless debates about what the Bible says while at the same time they proclaim it's perspicuity.
We have divisions aplenty in the Catholic Church. But at least in principle we agree that the standard of Acts 15 applies: when there is an irresolvable dispute which must be resolved, the Church must and can resolve it authoritatively. We base our approach to resolving disputes on the Bible.
And yet we are accused night and day of not taking the Bible for our guidance!
We might reasonably have differences of opinion about what the Bible says, but to be so regularly, so by rote as it were, accused of being unBiblical seems, at least, arbitrary.