Attention Protestants in favor of the Refomation!

[Syele]

I’m going to begin by telling you I am somewhat annoyed. Why do I have to ask you the same questions over? Why do you ignore large parts of my posts? The only way to get you to respond was to guess at what your answer might be and answer that. If you are going to continue the way you’ve started I may well jsut ignore you. If I spent the time to respond to you the least you can do it read it before responding.

Here are two you haven’t bothered to answer so far:
How can a person live by faith in Jesus Christ and have no works?
Do you have a source for your accusation that there are 60,000 protestant denominations?

Here are some more for ya:
I cannot prove that something dosn’t exist. If you want me to believe that something other than God and the bible are infalliable then you need tell me what those sources are and prove they are infalliable. it would be helpful if you include known and agreed upon infalliable sources in your argument.

Can you name some Christian non-calvinist Protestant groups who believe in OSAS? Beacuse I don’t know of any except for a few isolated indivuals.

I never heard of a “no need to pray” doctrine. Where do yoiu get this information?

You cited that the Catholic religion is older than Protestant. Hinduism is older than Catholic. Dosn’t it follow then that Hindus are more right? If not, maybe you should not throw out such things so randomly.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

So you’re saying that Christ established a priesthood, and then took it away? This seems to be more evidence of a God that does change

Protestant101:

Why don’t you show us then just what was taken from who. Explain the verse in question to us so that we can see what is truth here.

I’m not making that claim. You are. You’re the one who said it was taken away.

Montalban:

Paul himself handed on faith by word-of-mouth. He praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

Protestant101:

This is a mute point because God commanded in many places for His spoken word to be the written word and there is no difference between the two: Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

Do you mean ‘moot point’???

You’re missing the point. No where do I argue that tradition is less than the written word. You do. You argue that the Bible is all sufficient (alone) in teaching the message of Christ.

You seem to be confused as to what argument you wish to be making.

Montalban:

By the way, do you worship on a Saturday or a Sunday?

Does your church have communion?

Protestant101:

What have these two questions got to do with sola scriptura or with tradition, in the context that we are discussing?

If you worship on a Sunday, show me the Scripture that says “Thou shalt worship on a Sunday” (or words to that affect).

 

[Syele]

It’s not like they’ve never thought of that before. Protestants today aren’t like “Really, you mean the Bible says ‘not by faith alone’!”

No, they are quiet aware. Just like we are quiet aware that the book of Hebrews states that we have been sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (10:10).

And etc.

We understand things our way, and they understand things their way, and we disagree. We can explain Christ’s “once for all” sacrifice AND the Sacrificice of Mass, and they can explain justification by faith alone alongside of James 2.

I just thoght I’d throw that out, I’m feeling ecumenical today!

Thanks Bob.

You are 100% correct. If I wouldn’t bother to post a thread that brought up that Hebrews verse and conclude that “See! You all need to protest the Catholic Church!”

Frankly, I’ve come to expect better on CAF.

 

[Syele]

Syele;1481980:

I’ll have to talk to you tommorrow, it’s late in eastern time. If you correctly state your questions, instead of attacking me with accusations then I or someone else will answer them.

You are one to talk about “Correctly” stating questions.

Let’s look at your initial post:
you began by talking about sola fide when you didn’t understand the doctrine. You announced Sola Scriptura wasn’t in the Bible but declined to state which version of it “Isn’t in the Bible” until WAY later. You Cite OSAS very generally, as if it is what most protestants believe.

You followed that post with some no need to pray doctrine that dosn’t exist.

THEN you said but the problem isn’t the doctrines. The “PROBLEM I will state again, is that Jesus said he would be with the Church until the end of time.” But rather than talk on that point you switch over to complain about the number of denominations (With no source for it BTW).

You need to decide what this thread is about and correctly ask your own questions!

Now as for my stuffing of words in your mouth. You refused to answer my questions so I was stuck answering you without knowing your position. That’s a bit unfair, don’t you think? I believe sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only written infalliable document. If I’m wrong then it’s either not written or not infalliable or there are more written documents that are infalliable. The Bible does say it is not corrupt and it should be used for teaching, that IS in the Bible. You simply posted that it wasn’t with lots of exclaimation points. What did you expect in answer to something like that? And as for the comments about Calvinism… Sola Scriptura… Calvinist… OSAS… Calvinist… no need to pray… figment of an overactive imagination but still something you accused Calvin of.

 

[jmcrae]

Here are two you haven’t bothered to answer so far:
How can a person live by faith in Jesus Christ and have no works?

That’s a good question - I don’t think it’s possible.

I have run into Protestants who believe that there is such a thing as a “carnal Christian” - that is, someone who is “saved” but who shows no evidence of “good works” in his life, because at some point in his life he sincerely accepted Jesus Christ into his heart, and at the time had the intention of changing his life.

At that point, his destiny became secure, and the fact that he now openly commits sins, even to the point of denying God’s existence, can’t take his “salvation” away from him.

I’m sure that most ordinary Protestants would disagree with that, and say that someone who commits sin after making a profession of faith is probably in even worse trouble than someone who never knew anything about God to begin with. (St. Paul makes a statement to that effect in one of his letters, as I recall, but I don’t recall the exact chapter and verse, just at the moment.)

Do you have a source for your accusation that there are 60,000 protestant denominations?

This kind of thing is ludicrous, and you are right to ignore it. However, is it not distressing that the “Bible alone” philosophy has not been able to produce even one religion that did not divide against itself within the first generation of its existence? From 1529 until 1539, the original Lutheran religion divided into five separate and mutually hostile denominations, and the divisions have been continuing ever since.

Though there are probably not 60,000 different denominations, it’s bad enough that there were two, then three, then five within the first ten years of “Bible alone,” and now - who can say how many? I don’t think anyone really knows.

You cited that the Catholic religion is older than Protestant. Hinduism is older than Catholic. Dosn’t it follow then that Hindus are more right? If not, maybe you should not throw out such things so randomly.

Again, you are right. The age of the Catholic Church is unimportant - except insofar as that it is exactly the same age as the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ - and that no other currently-existing form of Christianity can make the same claim.

The important thing about the Catholic Church is not its age, in and of itself, but rather, that it is the only one qualified to be the Church that Christ founded (being the only one that dates back to His lifetime).

Hinduism came before Christ, and is thus also disqualified from being the True Church on the basis of its age - it’s too old.

 

[Image_of_God]

That’s a good question - I don’t think it’s possible.

I have run into Protestants who believe that there is such a thing as a “carnal Christian” - that is, someone who is “saved” but who shows no evidence of “good works” in his life, because at some point in his life he sincerely accepted Jesus Christ into his heart, and at the time had the intention of changing his life.

At that point, his destiny became secure, and the fact that he now openly commits sins, even to the point of denying God’s existence, can’t take his “salvation” away from him.

I’m sure that most ordinary Protestants would disagree with that, and say that someone who commits sin after making a profession of faith is probably in even worse trouble than someone who never knew anything about God to begin with. (St. Paul makes a statement to that effect in one of his letters, as I recall, but I don’t recall the exact chapter and verse, just at the moment.)

This kind of thing is ludicrous, and you are right to ignore it. However, is it not distressing that the “Bible alone” philosophy has not been able to produce even one religion that did not divide against itself within the first generation of its existence? From 1529 until 1539, the original Lutheran religion divided into five separate and mutually hostile denominations, and the divisions have been continuing ever since.

Though there are probably not 60,000 different denominations, it’s bad enough that there were two, then three, then five within the first ten years of “Bible alone,” and now - who can say how many? I don’t think anyone really knows.

Again, you are right. The age of the Catholic Church is unimportant - except insofar as that it is exactly the same age as the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ - and that no other currently-existing form of Christianity can make the same claim.

The important thing about the Catholic Church is not its age, in and of itself, but rather, that it is the only one qualified to be the Church that Christ founded (being the only one that dates back to His lifetime).

Hinduism came before Christ, and is thus also disqualified from being the True Church on the basis of its age - it’s too old.

Are you saying apostilic succession is unimportant?Because that is the way I take. Once again I make an apology for being so general. I have said this over and over again throughout the thread. It is not okay to be indifferent. Age does matter in so far as it has to do with tradition and apostilic succession. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion and has nothing to do with Christ. To say that age doesn’t matter is to go and say that the writings of the Church Fathers don’t matter for we go back to see what orthodox teachings were like.

Secondly, 60,000 is an exaggeration. Maybe it was too big But With the constant splintering of Protestant denominations it is hard to keep track.. Once again I will say I never said this applied to all Protestants. First Syele accused me for being to general and now I’m specific? I’m really starting to believe we are believing the same thing, we just haven’t met on even plane yet. I believe that there is nothing works could have done to cause Jesus died for us. We believe that. But the name can be confusing because it doesn’t indicate what it expresses. And once again I am sorry for these general statements. But it isn’t to common that some Protestants that I know of feel no need for going to Church because of OSAS. I never said that every Protestant thinks that sinning okay. Please do not believe that. I just believe that everyone percieves things a different way. While to the people you are around, you can go to hell if you do not repent, to others, it doesn’t matter what they do, they are still going to heaven, and this is what Luther thought…not that I say you are Lutheran.
Another thing is the constant division, no one can justify the unnecessary dividing in the Protestant Churches, even Paul was against such division. I understand that you Syele…are zealous for Christ and this is a good thing. I understand that you are comfortable about being in your Church, but the main part of bringing this thread was so that you could consider becoming Catholic, I never said you had too. But if you look at the Church Fathers and your Bible a little closer, you mind find it to be more Catholic than you think.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying apostilic succession is unimportant?

No, not at all. But as a first step, you need to find out which church was founded by Christ. Christ gave His Church to the Apostles, and it is their successors who are now in charge of His Church. But you can’t get to the Apostles if you don’t start with Christ.

What I was saying is that age is important - the True Church is 2,000 years old, so the one that is 2,000 years old is the right one.

But older is not better, just in and of itself.

Age does matter in so far as it has to do with tradition and apostilic succession. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion and has nothing to do with Christ. To say that age doesn’t matter is to go and say that the writings of the Church Fathers don’t matter for we go back to see what orthodox teachings were like.

I agree with that. When we look at the Fathers, we see that they knew who the Successors of the Apostles were, in their times - so we know that their church was Christ’s Church, and when St. Justin describes the Mass that was received from the Apostles, we see that it looks exactly like ours - he attended the same Mass that we do in the Catholic Church today.

So there is all kinds of evidence around that the Church that was founded by Jesus is the Catholic Church - but we have to take things one step at a time, in a logical order, so that people aren’t saying, “Wait a second. Where did that come from?” So that it’s not just (semingly) coming out of nowhere.

 

[Image_of_God]

I’m going to begin by telling you I am somewhat annoyed. Why do I have to ask you the same questions over? Why do you ignore large parts of my posts? The only way to get you to respond was to guess at what your answer might be and answer that. If you are going to continue the way you’ve started I may well jsut ignore you. If I spent the time to respond to you the least you can do it read it before responding.

Here are two you haven’t bothered to answer so far:
How can a person live by faith in Jesus Christ and have no works?
Do you have a source for your accusation that there are 60,000 protestant denominations?

Here are some more for ya:
I cannot prove that something dosn’t exist. If you want me to believe that something other than God and the bible are infalliable then you need tell me what those sources are and prove they are infalliable. it would be helpful if you include known and agreed upon infalliable sources in your argument.

Can you name some Christian non-calvinist Protestant groups who believe in OSAS? Beacuse I don’t know of any except for a few isolated indivuals.

I never heard of a “no need to pray” doctrine. Where do yoiu get this information?

You cited that the Catholic religion is older than Protestant. Hinduism is older than Catholic. Dosn’t it follow then that Hindus are more right? If not, maybe you should not throw out such things so randomly.

1.)That is a question between dead faith and living faith. Some people claim they have faith, but do not show works.

2.)It was an exaggeration…I wrote the word some to indicate that.

3.)Luthers original teaching refers to OSAS, so I believe that unreformed Lutherans do. I think that also some Anglicans do as well…my aunt is Anglican.

4.)I got that doctrine from a misinterpretation of Calvin’s doctrines. And I am sorry.

5.)Catholics have apostolic succesion. Protestants do not. This is what I mean by age matters. It has an unbroken line of succession from over the years. It has an orthodox style. Hindus are not right in this case…no disrespect to them…because their succession did not start with Christ.

Finally I did not mean to ignore your post. But I was more concerned with defending myself from your accusations more than answering your questions which was wrong of me.

 

[Image_of_God]

When did I say the Bible was fallible? Catholics believe in the sources of infalliblity.

Tradition
Scripture
Magesterium

The Bible does say it is correct for teaching and I do not deny that, but it did not say it was the ONLY source of infallibility. This seems to be the only doctrine that has retained its original form in Protestantism. So my question to you is, where in the Bible does it say it is the only source of infallibility?

 

[Image_of_God]

No, not at all. But as a first step, you need to find out which church was founded by Christ. Christ gave His Church to the Apostles, and it is their successors who are now in charge of His Church. But you can’t get to the Apostles if you don’t start with Christ.

What I was saying is that age is important - the True Church is 2,000 years old, so the one that is 2,000 years old is the right one.

But older is not better, just in and of itself.

I agree with that. When we look at the Fathers, we see that they knew who the Successors of the Apostles were, in their times - so we know that their church was Christ’s Church, and when St. Justin describes the Mass that was received from the Apostles, we see that it looks exactly like ours - he attended the same Mass that we do in the Catholic Church today.

So there is all kinds of evidence around that the Church that was founded by Jesus is the Catholic Church - but we have to take things one step at a time, in a logical order, so that people aren’t saying, “Wait a second. Where did that come from?” So that it’s not just (semingly) coming out of nowhere.

Right! I’m glad we could come into agreement.

 

[jmcrae]

So my question to you is, where in the Bible does it say it is the only source of infallibility?

I just have a need to be pedantic here, for a moment.

The Scriptures are inerrant - without error - but they are not infallible - the Bible is an inanimate object.

 

[Image_of_God]

I just have a need to be pedantic here, for a moment.

The Scriptures are inerrant - without error - but they are not infallible - the Bible is an inanimate object.

They are infallible if they are interpreted with the help of the Magesterium which is lead by the Holy Spirit. The Protestant claim that the Bible is the only source of infalliblity has lead them into crashing directions. As a Protestant said before, the Bible is God’s Voice. So it is and should not have so many contradicting opinions. This is NOT okay. It is not okay to be divided over the meaning of God’s Voice. Calvin and Luther had some conflicting opinions of God’s Voice…it doesn’t make sense. Without the Magesterium, Protestants will continue to conflict on God’s Voice which should not be so.

 

[jmcrae]

The Magesterium is infallible - it is a living organism. The Scriptures are inerrant - they are inanimate.

It’s important to use these terms correctly, so as to avoid future confusion.

 

[Syele]

When did I say the Bible was fallible? Catholics believe in the sources of infalliblity.

Tradition
Scripture
Magesterium

The Bible does say it is correct for teaching and I do not deny that, but it did not say it was the ONLY source of infallibility. This seems to be the only doctrine that has retained its original form in Protestantism. So my question to you is, where in the Bible does it say it is the only source of infallibility?

You misunderstood my origional comment.You said Sola Scriptura was not in the Bible but in the beginning you failed to say which version of it you ment. Since you didn’t answer the first time I tried to clarify, and then I simply defended what I believe it to be. I cannot find anywhere that I said “Image of God thinks the Bible is Falliable!”

I did say I believe it to be infalliable… I am refering to the origional texts in the origional languages. The versions we have now are however remarkably preserved and are not corrupt. I also think it is the only written infalliable source we currently have. I never said I think it’s the ONLY infalliable Source, After all we have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to name three other infalliable sources!

I have yet to be convinced that the Magesterium or Tradition are infalliable.

The Bible doesn’t say it’s the only source of infallibility. I don’t say that either, never have.

 

[Protestant101]

You seem to be confused as to what argument you wish to be making.

If you worship on a Sunday, show me the Scripture that says “Thou shalt worship on a Sunday” (or words to that affect).

LOL… I think you are confused about what I am “confused” about…so be it.

The Catholic catechism will give you all the usual replies for Sunday-keeping.

 

[Image_of_God]

You misunderstood my origional comment.You said Sola Scriptura was not in the Bible but in the beginning you failed to say which version of it you ment. Since you didn’t answer the first time I tried to clarify, and then I simply defended what I believe it to be. I cannot find anywhere that I said “Image of God thinks the Bible is Falliable!”

I did say I believe it to be infalliable… I am refering to the origional texts in the origional languages. The versions we have now are however remarkably preserved and are not corrupt. I also think it is the only written infalliable source we currently have. I never said I think it’s the ONLY infalliable Source, After all we have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to name three other infalliable sources!

I have yet to be convinced that the Magesterium or Tradition are infalliable.

The Bible doesn’t say it’s the only source of infallibility. I don’t say that either, never have.

In my mind, I’ve been informed with only one version of Sola Scriptura…the bible is the sole source of infalliblilty. You need not a direct declaration, to state that I said that…your prior questions indicate that you assumed I thought the Bible was infallible.

I only change the problem because you wanted me to answer your questions. The problem is still the same. I HAVE already stated my position on Sola Scriptura…take a good look at my message at 9:38p.m. You were NOT looking.

I recall at 7:48 p.m. you asked me, “Where is your proof that the Bible is fallible?” You were obviously indicating that I had said it was.

You also have to believe the ones that the Trinity sends.

Also If you are not convinced then you should definitely read the traditions the Fathers followed and the Magisterium they obeyed.

 

[Image_of_God]

Since we are getting off track of my original questions let me repost them.

I would like Protestants to realize how much they need to rejoin with the Catholic Church and it is she that has the bible all interpreted well. For we know the Catholic Church is the only Church that interprets scripture the right way and know human being can attempt to do what she has done in 2,000 years. For people have been lead astray by the many doctrines that are Protestant. Although Protestants in good faith can be saved we there doctrines are quite not in the bible.

"By Faith Alone"

James 2,26
For just as a body withous a spirit is dead so also faith without works is dead.

James 2,24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Sola Scriptura

Not even in the bible!!!

Once saved always saved

Roman 11,22
See then the kindness and severity of God. Severity toward those who fell(We Catholics call this Mortal sin) and God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness(What we Catholics call the state of grace)

I will might post more later but the point is that if you really believe the scripture are inspired, then believe all of this.

This, Syele, never said all Protestants were Calvinist. In my next post I even admitted that they didn’t apply to all Protestants. These are GENERALIZRED!!! The fact that there are to many denominations out there makes it hard to post specific doctrines. I never posted, “let us reject the Protestant Church.” I never did.
If you have a different form of a doctrine I have mentioned, please feel free to bring it up. However these are the overview of what many, not all Protestants believe these and are the doctrines that began Protestantism. You unjustly accused me of calling you Calvinist, which is unfair because I never said you were Protestant to begin with. You are the one who revealed it to me.

What do you think?

I asked what do you think about the Reformation and what do you think about the doctrines according to the Reformation. As you will notice my threads title is "Attention Protestants in Favor of Reformation. It has something to do with the Reformation. I want to know something about what you think of it and why you favor it. Syele…you never answered my original question to begin with.

Oh yeah!

John Calvin’s No need to pray Doctrine

1 Timothy 2,1
First of all, then, I ask that supplications,prayers,petitions, and thanksgiving be offered for everyone.

Forget that one…It was due to misrepresentations I read about and heard about Predestination

My main point as stated above why do you favor the Protestant Church. Is there something you don’t understand about the Catholic Faith. From all the people ALLFORHIM is the only one who answered the question.

What do you think?

 

[Syele]

Look, you insist on misreading my intentions, despite my efforts to explain myself. I ASKED you if you were calling me a calvinist not accused you of it. I ASKED you about your definition of Sola Scriptura and I Defined mine.

You asked what I thought of those doctrines you listed and I attempted to tell you.

My main point as stated above why do you favor the Protestant Church. Is there something you don’t understand about the Catholic Faith.

I feel I understand the Catholic Church quite well. I was engaged to marry a Catholic and very seriously considered converting. I spent years studying the CCC and attending Mass with my Fieance and going to regular meetings with the Priest in preparation to get married in the Catholic Church. there are things I disagree with but I do not think I misunderstand them.

I cannot accept:

1. Infalliability of any human (or group of them) other than Jesus. (He is allowed to be an exception only because He is also fully God.)
2. The need of a mediator between Jesus and His followers. Jesus IS our mediator!
3. Indulgences
4. Marian Doctrines (I believe Mary was an AWESOME Christian, but I think the Catholic Church takes her adoration too far.)
5. The designation between mortal and venial sins.
6. the Catholic definition of Justification.

 

[Image_of_God]

You are using explicitly calvinist doctrines and ascribing them to all protestants.

My statement does not go against the Bible. The works are not for justification but for sanctification but they are still very important. If I come to believe James should be interpreted your way then he contradicts Paul. Was paul a liar when he said, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” (**Romans 3:28) or how about " **8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
James was talking about the works that a saved person performs as a result of the work God has already done in them and Paul is talking about the uselessness of works for becomming saved in the first place. Paul isn’t saying that a Christian is not supposed to do good works and James is not saying that works are needs for salvation. Our works prove our justification.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the Trinity is in the Bible but it never says the word “Trinity” I said that to show how your argument is not too well thought out. You have still failed to even define which version of sola scriptura you are saying is wrong. I gave you my definition… so I will assume we are talking about my definition of sola scriptura. Where is your proof that the Bible is corrupted or that is it falliable?

Why do you use so many !!!'s!?! I’m fairly certian… no, I’m positive that I said that you can become unsaved! OSAS is a Calvinist doctrine. Are you calling me a Calvinist or not?

Once again these are NOT Calvin only doctrines…When did I say that you were. I use !!! to get your attention. I never said you believe in OSAS. I never said you were Calvinist. I never even said you were Protestant. I never said that ALL Protestants believed these things. I never said Paul said we didn’t need to do works. These are only assumptions that you concluded on your own and this is completely off topic from the title. I never said that you said that someone could not become unsaved.

Your origional post is directed specifically to calvinists and yet you say it is to protestants. Prostestant is simply too broad a term to use those arguments. AFAIK the Calvinists have been grumbling that they are the minority of Protestants these days! If your problem isn’t the doctrines then you should have begun with the problem rather than the doctrines.

I know of no protestant who believes what you are spouting. We believe that the pope is “replaced” with God not ourselves. We are to get the interpretation of scripture from the Holy Spirit, not ourselves. Division comes when people fail to listen to the Holy Spirit. And I agree with you that division is bad. I will never agree that protestants all rely only on their own minds to interpret scripture. You are correct, the Holy Spirit dosn’t teach error. Any who teach error will be judged accordingly by God.

When did I say these doctrines are specifically directed to Calvinists? I never did. My very title was the problem and the doctrines are included in the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation happens to include the arise of new doctrines.

In a later post at 5:38 you just said that you do not believe the Pope is replaces God. Which is it? You also said somewhere that the Trinity is not in the Bible at 4:49 p.m.
but at 7:48 on the same exact day you said. “Don’t get me wrong, I never said the Trinity is not in the Bible. I just said the word Trinity isn’t…” Which is it?

Your statements are constantly contradicting each other. I have gone back to answer all the questions I saw so that we can get back to the real question in which you never answered.

 

[Image_of_God]

Look, you insist on misreading my intentions, despite my efforts to explain myself. I ASKED you if you were calling me a calvinist not accused you of it. I ASKED you about your definition of Sola Scriptura and I Defined mine.

You asked what I thought of those doctrines you listed and I attempted to tell you.

I feel I understand the Catholic Church quite well. I was engaged to marry a Catholic and very seriously considered converting. I spent years studying the CCC and attending Mass with my Fieance and going to regular meetings with the Priest in preparation to get married in the Catholic Church. there are things I disagree with but I do not think I misunderstand them.

I cannot accept:

1. Infalliability of any human (or group of them) other than Jesus. (He is allowed to be an exception only because He is also fully God.)
2. The need of a mediator between Jesus and His followers. Jesus IS our mediator!
3. Indulgences
4. Marian Doctrines (I believe Mary was an AWESOME Christian, but I think the Catholic Church takes her adoration too far.)
5. The designation between mortal and venial sins.
6. the Catholic definition of Justification.

You do misunderstand them. Who said the Pope himself was infallible? From the Catholic definition it says only when he speaks excathedra. It never said he was free from sin and error…that is what infallible means.

Who said there is any other mediator besides Jesus. Saints are NOT mediators. They are people. And they are more innocent than you and I are because they are in heaven. Isn’t it correct to pray to a fellow human being? How much more human are they?

I never take my adoration of Mary to far. If you are in fact a sister or brother of Christ and she is his mother should we not honor her as a mother?

I beginning to think that our definitions are the EXACT same it is just the name.

The bible specifically says that there are deadly(mortal) sins in the letter of one John. If not mortal what does it mean? These are far from what the Cathechism teaches. In fact I think you do misunderstand them.

If you did not accuse me of calling you Calvinist check your post at 4:49 p.m on September 10. I am pretty sure you are Protestant. You obviously did not read the part above the doctrines if you think that is all I meant. I had already defined my doctrine of Sola Scriptura by the 2nd time you asked me. I have no intention of being mean. You clearly accused me…but then you explained yourself. I know you probably didn’t think you did, but I cannot know the feelings of heart. What you type I have to interpret it neutraly. Most of your saying are definite statements about things I never said so I take them as accusations.