What Elsie had posted in #208 was all about "intercessory" prayers ---you say. Sorry -- it was not. I'm not buying your spin, doctor.
The types of quotes from Catholic sources that were being showcased there, and again in comment #505 go far beyond being limited to merely referencing "intercessory prayer".
Even if going only that far with things, asking those in heaven to "pray for us", that alone is still problematic for a variety of reasons I'll not go too fully into for the time being other than to say were not part of the earliest, primitive church. Prayers were originally given for, and about the dead, as attested to by earliest liturgies. There were not prayers directed to those whom had passed on (but thought to be in Heaven) to plead with departed saints for their own personal intercessions ---not until some time contemporary with Chrysostom.
You may fool yourself with such talk ---but you are not fooling me.
Perhaps to the "tone" (but I still seriously doubt that, despite your objections) yet not to the intent -- afaict. I would have to be correct in the latter ---or else it would be you who simply does not well enough understand the import of the small sampling of Marionist hyperventilating that was posted --- and is but a limited part and parcel sampling of how, theologically speaking, "Mary" has been portrayed as more accessible than God Himself -- while being attributed to herself also possession of many of God the Father's own, and Jesus Christ's own attributes.
Spare me the piety act. It's like enlarging the hems of one's garment, then standing out on a street corner praying loudly -- so everyone passing by will notice the "piety".
Yet if you actually do pray for me (not that I am asking you to, far from it)-- try listening, instead of talking. God knows who I am. I've encountered Him quite directly, many times over. Listen to hear if He tells you something you may not expect -- like -- something that does not fit in with whatever presuppositions you may have.
Of course you didn't. There was any easy way to avoid doing anything like approaching that. Instead, you took an easy way to deal with it and distance everyone from further examining what was posted ---by way of having projected this kind of nonsense into the mix;
"Judging by..." and "I guess you think...". That's where things went haywire (and even became rude, and potentially offensive) and that's right where I stepped in to straighten you out. So sue me for having called attention to that piece of slick as snot mind reading...
Complaints now about myself being rude --- mean little at this point. Look to your own, and in the future, I may possibly be troubling you less with mine.
It was yourself who had first engaged in conflating the alleged "keys" that adorers of "Mary" write (poetically?) that Mary allegedly possesses, with the keys mentioned in Matthew 16. REMEMBER???
If leaving Mary out of it, focusing upon the Apostles written of in scripture texts; what other authority was Jesus talking about? As I touched upon, and gave scriptural support for; it was not that Peter would have some over-riding authority over other Apostles. We could include the thought that within scriptural texts Jesus PRECLUDED His own approval of later doctrinal developments within the Latin church, namely; the idea that other bishops' and priests' own alleged "authority" would be derived from, and be dependent upon so-called "Petrine authority" that was intended to be possessed by whoever happened to be bishop of Rome at any particular time, although I do detect that nowadays -- there is effort to unwind/modify that position (while still clinging to it!) at the same time...
That's when the RC secret decoder rings get to twirling with great rapidity -- in order to cover for all the talking out of both sides of the face that the Latin Church in past ages (and now also) indulges itself with...
Regarding singular "papacy", the early Church most certainly did not see things the way Rome alone eventually asserted things were to be. If Rome's way of looking at this subject were to have been what was "instituted by Christ" -- NOBODY NOTICED for many centuries. Why is that?
Was the early Church that dumb, even stupid -- they did not notice? They would have to have been, yet there is evidence against that...
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARYA Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
You said;
Horsefeathers. Though there were isolated appeals to Rome made here and there among early centuries Church history, it was not as if all anyone had to do would be to gain assent of the bishop of Rome in order to settle theological dispute.
That becomes more plain when the fuller contexts and setting of the few appeals to 'Rome' there were are critically examined, rather than cherry-picked in truncated portion and paragraph. Many of those appeals also began after concept of patriarchate had taken root, and from among the Western, or Latin Church, with ourselves needing to bear in mind here that there were once three (or even, five) See's of Peter in existence.
None of those latter relied singularly upon a bishop of Rome, nor had elevated that bishopric to be a place of "bishop of bishops". A Latin church "Pope", Gregory the Great wrote against the very notion of there being a singular papacy, a "bishop of bishops" as he put it (if memory properly serves) terming the very idea of it --- demonic. It's no real wonder why persons such as John Calvin described Gregory as the last "good" Pope.
Citing questionable (& problematic) material from Irenaeus [see & clic upon footnote 3313 in just previous link] in isolation of the argument he was making -- hardly makes the case which you need to make, for Irenaeus was pointing to Rome at that early juncture as a place where Gnostic heresies had not gotten much traction, rather than to have been pointing to Rome as some seat of authority that he himself relied upon.
If it was a simple matter of appealing to Rome -- why is there not yet more of "appealing to Rome", and repeated instances of more explicit directing everyone to simply go there in order to settle any dispute from this one writer (Irenaeus) who wrote extensively against a variety of heresy?
Irenaeus himself corrected two different Latin Church bishops. One of them, Victor, he corrected for having gotten carried away with the idea of a bishop of Rome having overweening authority over other bishops. Imagine that!
It amazes me how Catholics will cite Irenaeus in the one place where they think they can squeeze in sideways early support for Romish notions of Latin Church Supremacy -- while ignoring anything and everything else which goes contrary to that precise sought for ending point...
If how you are laying out the case for what in the end does equate/will be converted into equating to Romish Supremacy [see Vatican I: http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Pastor-Aeternus.htm] were that simple, then there would be much more material available to support the cause from widely among the earliest Church ----rather than reliance be chiefly upon isolated snippets of scripture, and cherry-picked citation from early church fathers.
You say;
I noticed that you had seized upon that qualifier I had employed --- "not...beyond correction of other bishops". It's about time the Church of Rome woke up and smelled the coffee.
Coffee must not have been partaken of all that much during Vatican I;
"...Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, ... "
[snip] "... And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff. ..."
There is no real room for a Pope be subject to "the correction by the other bishops" in the above, from Vatican I.
Spare me the assertion that there is, based upon it being insisted that there is -- now, in more recent time -- and asserted only by v*some* among the Latin Church --- for it was once, not so, not at all. No one would dare, although there may have been more "Popes" whacked (killed, that is) by other popes, and various interests within the Latin Church than is freely confessed to...
To end this, let us focus again on what Matthew 16 meant among the early Church. Although notions of Peter having what came to be widely referred to as "primacy", a being "first" in a variety of things, arguing for that is near-meaningless when not considering also how the Church of Rome took it to be inheritable, and inheritable for themselves alone, while rather simultaneously adjusting the meaning of the word to equate with Supremacy over all the rest of the Church.
Oh???
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
And St. Paul chimes in...
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!