[pseudo-justin]

Well, your standards might or might not mean something. I, however, am talking about ME.

I am talking about you too, and I am wondering why you do not recognize that the exegetical methods you have internalized from your Protestant tradition has implications for whether you find any scriptural proofs concering Marian doctrines convincing. Have you read this book:

Catholic for a Reason II: Scripture and the Mystery of the Mother of God by Leon Suprenant Jr. (Editor), Beth Hart (Illustrator).

It is available through amazon.com

Could you tell me what you do not find convincing about these particular arguments? This book in particular should be of interest to you, because most if not all of the contributors are minister-converts of the sort discussed in the article posted on this thread. What exactly is unconvincing about, say, Revelation 12? All I am asking is for you to identify the source of the unconvincingness of the arguments that have been presented to you. I really would like to know for future reference.

As for the questions about the consitution, Congress, and majority rule, you have already drawn a false analogy. As I pointed out earlier, many Protestants have this image of the Catholic Church such that Scripture is not a chief part of the life of the Chruch Like the bible fell out of the sky in the sixteenth century and people first began reading it--and only Protestants began reading it of course. This is just a false analogy . The Catholic Church is not living without Scripture, not forming its doctrines without Scripture, not lacking in a an army of people who are reading reflecting, and contemplating Scripture. That you would even draw such an analogy shows that you imagine the Church to be a Scriptureless entity. Do you have any idea how deeply Scriputre figures into the Church's teachings? Just look at any systematic textbook on Catholic dogma. Better yet, look at the Catechism. It is saturated with Scripture from the first paragraph to the last. To even draw the analogy that you have drawn makes it look like we do not care for Scripture, we have nothing but arbitrary human judgment to go on, that the Bishops are not beholden to the Scripture, and that is just plain false.

[xzins]

Nope, but I just finishe "Hail Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn. He's down my alley. A protestant (as per this thread) who turned to the other side. I thought if anyone could explain it, he could.

But all he gave were arguments....not proof.

I didn't form a false analogy with the Constitution, because I didn't say Catholics weren't informed by the Holy Scriptures. I do NOT believe they aren't informed by them. Hahn's writings that I've read are full of them.

We consider them decisively authoritative OVER the church. You consider the Church decisively authoritative OVER the scripture. I've seen (and been a part of) the discussions on some of these threads on that subject.

My argument is that the scriptures are the CLEAR apostolic authority extant in the world today. The apostles always had authority over the church. Therefore, the writings of the apostles have priority over the church.

Others have had arguments that have attempted to dissuade me from that conclusion, but none have had arguments that I found as persuasive.

In any case, you've been a fair discussion partner. Do you realize we have YELLED at or attempted to DEMONIZE each other even once.