On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

I apologize as you are not the one who wrote the post I was speaking of! Blonde!

I am definitely discussing the "proper roles of Scripture and Tradition, as is the topic".

Of course you are. I apologize, -- I only meant to prevent the usual sidetracking into mariology, which for some reason excites people too much and all such threads look alike. It is wholly understandable to discuss Mary too, just that I want the thread to be primarily about what the head article is about.

When individuals have the same holy power over their destinations that the church claims, the church must be just another organization.

The Catholic or Orthodox do not disagree that the individual reaches final justification based on what he individually does. Indeed, this follows from the "Kingdom is within you" verses that you cite so often. But you seem to read these two verses and discard everything else. I read these verses. I do not discard them. But I also read the scripture that describes the Church that I offered to you, -- the Matthew "bind and loose" passage, and the entire spirit of 1 Corinthians, and Timothy, and Titus. Moroeover, I showed you (maybe on the Rome thread) that some aspects of the Kingdom of God are social and not pertaining to the individual. As a Catohlic I cannot take just a few verses I like and build a theology on them alone.

The Catholic teaching on the Baptism is that anyone can baptize if a priest is not available, ad that specifically Protestant Baptism (excepting some far-off denominations) is valid. Protestant converts are not re-baptized. So on this score you probalby won't disagree as it is one case where the priestly function is not necessary (marriage is another). Further, we teach that thus defined baptism accepts one into the Catholic Church and washes off his original sin, as well as all personal sin up to that point. But it does not guarantee eventual salvation and it does nto protect from committing future personal sin. We believe that it is Christ who baptizes and the will of either the sponsor or the baptizee himself is sufficient; for that reason, it is possible to baptize an infant. We do require repentance and a statement of faith in an adult who gets baptized.

Most of it is tradition, as the specifics of baptism are not elaborated upon in the Scripture, and what is said about it we adhere to.

Who judges that it was or was not in Jesus' orderly fashion when He did [effect the adoption of St. John by Mary]?

The scripture indicates that it was next to last word of Christ before death, so to think that it was some trivial economic arrangement would be strange. Also, St. James was related to Mary and would have been a natural caretaker. Also, Mary is likened to any other disciple who "keeps the word" in two other passages in the gospels, so the familial connection between Mary and the body of the disciples is a scriptural fact. Of course, the Church decides how to interpret this, just like with anything else.

nowhere in Biblical Scripture is the word "church" capitalized

The entire Greek original has no capitalization, not even for personal names.

All disciples of Christ are part of the Body of Christ

Do you disagree that that body is formed through baptism? Because every time a conversion is described in he scripture, the convert is immediately baptized.

Do you disagree that through one's actions one can leave the Church? Examples are Simon Magus, Hymeneus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1), Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5), and we have to assume many more, as St. Paul in 2 Timothy complains that most have left him.

"I apologize as you are not the one who wrote the post I was speaking of! Blonde!"

Think nothing of it, dear lady!

"I do not believe that it is the first and only Church, but that it is one of the Churches of the Lord."
______________________

Your absolutely right. Clearly when someone goes out of their way to insult you you've won the argument.

Your post #109, unbelievably offensive to me

I regret that, but my post was not personal. I stand by my statement, namely that behind every Protestant sect there is a man who established it. The same is true of Islam.

This does not compare Protestants to Islam as far as their faiths are concerned. If you disagree, please provide some proof that this is not so.

Your position is full of very (marginal) circular reasoning

Oh? What is "marginal" and what is "circular" about it?

John's letter (1 John 2:27 DOESN'T say we do not need leaders and instructors...

No, it says "but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things..."

If something teaches you "all thing" you don't need anyone or anything else to teach you, do you?

we are disciples of Jesus Christ

Gnostics, Jehova's Witnesses and Latter-Day-Saints claim the same thing. So, do Arians and Nestorians for that matter. What does that mean "we are disciples of Jesus Christ?"

Have you ever noticed that the terms "elder" and "deacon" are never capitalized

Of course, because the original Greek text didn't use such orthodgraphic niceties as capitalization.

This ESPECIALLY includes the doma ministry gifts you have listed

I have no idea what "doma ministry gifts" are or how this applies to the fact that the New Testament establishes Church hierarchy.

These are mature spiritual gifts, and the completely configured gifts...

Huh?

For all the zealous defense of "orthodoxy" and tradition here -- These same apologists seem to constantly: 1. Add to (or take away from...) the canon of Biblical truth

Examples, please.

2. Invent/re-invent more hierarchical religious offices,

Examples, please.

3. teaxh and/or endorse un-Biblical (occasionally CLEARLY forbidden!) spiritual practices,... Examples, please!!!!

AND...4. Additional rites, ordnances rituals and traditions that remain a very long way from and sound foundation in the simple Scriptural premises of the New Covenenant

I suppose you have gotten the clue by now...please.

All of which begs the original [sic] question: Is following Jesus Christ through Biblical Christian faith more of a "religion" or a relationship?

Whose question was that?

So many of your positions are approaching the absurd....

I wish you'd mention which "so many" so we can establish how absurd they are. If you mean the underlined section, namely that the Protestants are not part of the Church, then I beg to differ with you.

This was not meant as an insult, and I made that abundantly clear. Nor was it meant to question their faith. I question no one's faith. But, you will have to consider a historical fact that followers of Luther left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the only Church (which is why it is capitalized) we know that was established by our Lord Jesus Christ in Person.

Aside from the historical aspect of this being outside of the Church, it is clear that the Church considers Protestants as "separated brethren" even though, by virtue of their Baptism (those that are Trinitarian) they are still Catholic, even if their practices are not.

The Church considers Protestant churches as Christian "assemblies" and "communities" that are outside the Church. And, the Orthodox Church does also.

So, if there is anything "absurd" in all this, it is not "mine" and it is not even absurd.

For someone who constantly makes snide remarks and sneers at sincere followers of Christ concerning the use of "your Christian Bible" -- I suggest you read it from cover to cover

Obviously you are not aware that Luther changed the Christian canon. His ambition was to do a lot more damage than he did. But one thing he certainly did accomplish and that was to switch ti the Hebrew-language OT canon rather than the OT quoted by the Apostles (in over 95% of the cases), which is the Septuagint (or LXX).

So, to be honest with you, we do NOT read the same Bible. There is nothing snide about it. You are just being introduced to some realities which you were not aware of, and which are fully verifiable.

To see how different the two Bibles really can be, consider Isaiah 9:6

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" [KJV]

"For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder; and His name is called The Messenger of Great Counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him." [LXX]

Clearly, someone's fingers have been in some of these verses, don't you think? The two verses are unrecognizable!

And what about, moving on just two verses down, Isa 9:8

"The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" [KJV]

"The Lord has sent death upon Jacob, and it has come upon Israel." [LXX]

Reads like two different books, doesn't it?

I also strongly suggest you repent of your arrogant but ignorant religiosity -- and seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness --

Now, that is personal. You are calling my religiosity "ignorant" and "arrogant." Why? To which I simply say: please prove it now that you qualified it.

Clearly when someone goes out of their way to insult you you've won the argument

I certainly did not go out of my way to "insult" ladyinred personally (she wasn't even on the list of individuals I responded to). I was expresisng an opinion based on historically verifiable facts. I regret ladyinred was upset by that. She was neither the subject nor the target of my post.

The entire Greek original has no capitalization, not even for personal names

Thank you Alex. I responded to this unware that you did too. You are absolutely right.

WnW: All disciples of Christ are part of the Body of Christ

Alex, I have already answered this one too. The point is that it is not enough to simply "adopt" Christ as your Savior. Gnostics, Jehova's Witnesses and Latter-Day-Saints claim the same thing. So, do Arians and Nestorians for that matter. There is a lot more to it.

a lot more to it.

You bet.

I really would like to understand better how in the Protestant mind that Body of Christ is formed, so I inserted myself in your conversation. I know you would not mind.

I really would like to understand better how in the Protestant mind that Body of Christ is formed, so I inserted myself in your conversation. I know you would not mind

No at all. By all means please do. And that goes to our Protestant friends as well. It doesn't mean I agree with them. But we all learn from each other. So, talk is good.

To succinctly answer your propositions:
(1)Do you disagree that that body is formed through baptism?
Acts 2:27-31
1 Corinthians 12:12-27
Ephesians 4:11-16

(2) Do you disagree that through one's actions one can leave the Church?

The isolation of broken fellowship... yes
The rebuke and discipline/consequences of broken faith... yes
A broken covenant... No
(See Romans 8:38-39)

MY TURN...

Do you disagree that accepting the Lord's invitation to life in the Kingdom of God requires an active commitment of the free will, irregardless of affiliations, acts, rites or rituals performed outside or in the stead of the active free will of man?

Do you disagree that Jesus had half-siblings (at least four brothers, and at least two sisters) that were the issue of the marriage of Mary by her husband Joseph the step-father of Jesus?

Do you disagree that the repentant thief on the cross experienced a complete acceptance in the paradise of God through his faith in Christ?

Do you disagree that Christians can be found in broken fellowship, and later found restored to favor and service by the extension of God's grace through the ministry of reconciliation, and appropriate expressions of repentance and forgiveness?

Do you disagree that the dogma of Purgatory is an un-Biblical doctrine?

Do you disagree that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as well as the purported Assumption of Mary are un-Biblical doctrines?

Do you disagree that Christians other than orthodox liturgists are indeed true believers, accepted of God by their baptism in water and Spirit with sincere faith in Christ; thus members of the Body of Christ and therefore welcome at the communion table in this life as they will be at the marriage supper of the Lamb?

Do you disagree that the human psychological phenomenon known as "group think" can be a very deceptive, if not dangerous enterprise?

Fantasy. He taught mostly to the Apostles. To others He spoke in parables.

So only the apostles had the Kingdom of God within? Only the apostles could seek first the Kingdom of God and all else would be added to them?

Jesus spoke in parables by His compassion. Once knowledge is known, it is the responsibility of the knower to exact it. Many were not ready, but many were, hence "For him with ears let him hear."

The apostles were ready, too. So what?

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" [Mat 28:19, NAB]

You already quoted that passage and I told you what it meant. A nation is a corporate entity, artificial, that is, composed of its individual members. The is hard material physical reality like the law of gravity.

You can't access a "nation" as a person. The closest you can come is access to the leadership, the government and the corruption that always therein, and the leadership cannot commit a spiritual pathway for the citizens of that nation. This is what America is founded on. You're American, right?

You must access each individual in the nation. You are dealing with a figure of speech, poetic imagery, which the Bible is full of.

I have a hard time believing you are using these mediocre arguments to support a human run organization having spiritual sovereignty of all the people in the world and a gatekeeper to God Almighty Himself.

If Christ wanted everyone to read the Bible and interpret it as they please He would have made that happen. Instead, He clearly chose not to, but to commission His Apostles to teach others. It was not a Jewish practice to read the Bible and, being a pious Jew, Jesus would have never said otherwise.

He did make that happen. I can, right now, kneel and pray to God and He will meet my need, unless it is selfish. I do and He does. I have endless testimony over the course of my life. I am not Catholic.

So what if he commissioned people to teach others? His mission was to spread the Gospel. You are in the silly position of claiming only those who He chose to spread it have the authority to send a person to Heaven or to Hell.

As for "sola scriptura" vs Tradition. We know what we read is from those ancient times. How do we know any oral "Tradition" was really preached? It wasn't written, because it was oral. Because the Catholic church says so, to its benefit and increase?

I don't think so. God condemns fools.

Sola scriptura is simply not scriptural.

Neither is "Tradition". Oh, the word "tradition" may be used in the scriptures, but who knows what it meant? The word "scriptures" is used, too, and references to using them to teach. We know what that means.

Hardly. The only breaking is in the Protestant world where the never-ending search for the "true church" results in ever-increasing "denominations" (somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-plus thousand known ones to this date).

So what if there 200,000?

When an individual, thought his own agency, can reach salvation and eternal life, by seeking the Kingdom, which is within each individual, any church that claims sovereignty over a person's soul, Catholic or Protestant, is broken.

Not in the Protestant world.

Yes, in the Protestant world. All that is specifically needful is agreed upon, unless it be some Jim Jones sect. As for individually enacted techniques, well, every person is different, like every blade of grass. God knows what is in the heart.

I will agree with you that some sects are drifting toward the heretical fringe, but, then, the Catholic church is awash is sin and sodomy.

No man has authority to save himself. You do have options. But salvation comes only from God.

Salvation indeed comes from God. Not any church. The Kingdom of God is within, and there you seek it. It is not inside a church, Catholic or Protestant. The scriptures are clear.

LOL

So you can't refute what I said? Do you understand what I said.

Yes, that's obvious, where "thinking man" is the final arbiter of what is God's and what is not, by virtue of reason. Yup, mankind will figure everything out, even God. No lack of pride and arrogance there in our "supreme" ability to understand and know everything and all by creating rationalism as a form of religion.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 18:19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Jesus was all the time reasoning with the scribes and Pharisees over scripture.

God gave man a mind and reason. He meant us to use it.

Sometimes. IN the case of making all nations the disciples of Christ, it is crystal clear indeed. I wish you would see it too.

The scripture that teach individuals to have faith (only an individual can do that) seek the Kingdom (only an individual can do that) and other things only an individual can do to reach salvation, the scripture are crystal clear. Only in those which may be open to interpretation can the church gain foothold, but doing so, it drifts outside the crystal clear communication of the the vast majority of the scriptures (scriptural crisis).

The difference is that you are invested in the Catholic church, linked through the natural human being's desire to feel superiority and the fear of eternal damnation if not invested in the church. You cannot hear what I say. But, perhaps others, not so programed and conditioned, will.

I find it interesting that church plays upon the specific negative aspects of our sinful natures to project itself to gain power.

Acts 2:27-31

The passage does not speak to the question at all.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27

This agrees with me, one enters the mystical Body of Christ through baptism ("all baptized into one body", 1 Cor 12:13)

Ephesians 4:11-16

This passage speaks about the Mystical Body of Christ, but it does not speak abouit entering it in any particular way.

Romans 8:38-39

Speaks of external powers not being able to separate a believer from the love of God (there is a similar passage in John 10). Does not speak of a believer separating himself though loss of faith. However, we agree to the extent that baptism is an indelible seal or mark.

Do you disagree that accepting the Lord's invitation to life in the Kingdom of God requires an active commitment of the free will, irregardless of affiliations, acts, rites or rituals performed outside or in the stead of the active free will of man?

Baptism requires a free-will commitment from either a parent or sponsor of a child, or form the baptizee himself if he is capable of reason. Baptism is ordinarily necessary for participation in the eternal life of Christ. Exceptions are possible when actual physical baptism with water is inavailable.

Do you disagree that Jesus had half-siblings (at least four brothers, and at least two sisters) that were the issue of the marriage of Mary by her husband Joseph

I disagree. The scripture is silent on whether Mary had physical marital relations with Joseph following the birth of Our Lord, however, those relatives that are mentioned by name in the Gospels are clearly children of Mary Cleopas and not Our Lady. The tradition of the Church teaches that Our Lady was ever virgin.

Do you disagree that the repentant thief on the cross experienced a complete acceptance in the paradise of God through his faith in Christ?

Not though faith alone: he professed his faith, repented of his sin, received baptism of blood through his suffering, and did the work of charity defending the innocently accused Jesus.

Do you disagree that Christians can be found in broken fellowship, and later found restored to favor and service by the extension of God's grace through the ministry of reconciliation, and appropriate expressions of repentance and forgiveness?

Ordinarily, a sacramental confession is necessary from a priest, but otherwise I agree.

Do you disagree that the dogma of Purgatory is an un-Biblical doctrine?

The doctrine was formulated by the Church through her Teaching Magisterium relatively late, however, the fundamentals of the teaching: the necessity of the prayer for the dead and the need for purification after death is patristic. The scriptural basis for the doctrine is 1 Cor 3:9-15, Matthew 18:23-35, Matthew 5:26.

Besides, from experience I know that "un-Biblical" is sometimes used in the sense "not described in the Bible", and sometimes in the sense "contradicting things stated in the Bible". The Church teaches, and I beleive, that the absence of a teaching in the Bible does not invalidate it (e.g. the Holy Trinity is not defined in the Bible), and only contradictions with the patristic interpretation of the Bible count as invalidating factors.

Do you disagree that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as well as the purported Assumption of Mary are un-Biblical doctrines?

The dogma of immaculate conception derives from the past tense used by Archangel Gabriel in referring to Mary as "filled with grace (kecharitomene)" in Luke 1, but otherwise these are magisterial teaching.

Do you disagree that Christians other than orthodox liturgists are indeed true believers, accepted of God by their baptism in water and Spirit with sincere faith in Christ; thus members of the Body of Christ and therefore welcome at the communion table in this life as they will be at the marriage supper of the Lamb?

Non Catholics and non-Orthodox, and even unbaptized can be saved depending of their works and obedience to the law as revealed to them. Baptism is by the water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit). We welcome the Orthodox at the Catholic Communion in principle, even as we urge them to obey their bishops who disallow them to do so. We do not offer the Holy Communion to the other communities of faith because we do not have sufficient unity of faith with them, to which this discussion is evidence.

Do you disagree that the human psychological phenomenon known as "group think" can be a very deceptive, if not dangerous enterprise?

I agree, it is very dangerous to engage in group-think.

The reason I use those two verses is because they pretty much sum up the scriptural relationship of man and God, and man's access to God. They reflect the spirit of the rest of the scriptures, and indeed, our observation of ourselves and the world around us. I believe that the foundational things of human spirituality written of in the Bible can be observed in every day life.

Let me say, if my seeming truculence has you fooled, that I find most every Catholic I meet good folks, grounded in the things of the spirit. I expect, and know I will see, them standing shoulder to shoulder with me and mine when we face the evil of Islam. In the final analysis, we are all brothers in Christ and make up His body.

I agree on your writing about baptism. I do think that to baptize, the one must be on the true path to the Kingdom and hold the teachings of Christ sincerely in his heart, and so must the baptized. And that's all that's needed.

I don't think statements of repentance are much good. Repentance of past sins before receiving Christ is a long process, and only when the truth of your behavior come clear do you feel that gut wrenching need to fall on your face and confess your wrongness, and it that state can you be open for forgiveness. The forgiveness is what matters. Only then are you clean.

In my experience, you hurt when you've realized your past wrong, and when you repent, you actually feel the forgiveness of Christ come to you.

As for Jesus charging a disciple with the car of His mother, it don't see how, even if He waited to the last minute, it confers anything other that her as His mother to her. In at least three other scriptures, there is the appearance that he didn't esteem her greater than any other that came to him to learn the ways of God.

You could even interpret this act on the tree interpret like that. I don't believe that that, though. I believed Jesus loved His mother, and acknowledged that the Holy Spirit used he to build His earthly body.

I don't believe that accorded her status to be prayed to, or worshiped in any way, which acts of faith are reserved for Him and His Father. I think the Catholic church leadership errs in that, and errs in arrogance.

And we must remember Paul's opinion, which I happen to share. Of faith, hope and charity, charity is the greatest, and no matter what miracles you do, if you can't love with pure agape love, you are not alive, just your body.

So only the apostles had the Kingdom of God within? Only the apostles could seek first the Kingdom of God and all else would be added to them?

Christ designated only a handful of individuals and gave them the powers to bind and loose (the "keys"), and they, through the Holy Spirit, in turn to those they designated to succeed them.

The New Testament is clear on that, as it is clear that the Church, left in the hands of Christ's hand-picked Apostles, established hierarchy.

The Faith celebrated in the Apostolic Church which was established by Christ in Person, was and is a continuation of one and the same faith handed down to the Patriarchs onward, and the liturgical makeup of the service (liturgy) is a continuation of the Jewish liturgical tradition.

As such, the Church never understood the service to be anything but that done by designated priests in a manner of offering a sacrifice, and not by self-styled bible-thumping "ministers."

Likewise, the Torah was not something everyone could just read and make up his or her own religion out of. That concept of scriptural interpretation by the priestly class was carried over into the Church of the New Covenant seamlessly.

Therefore all this is not some "invention" of the Catholic church, but a continuation of Judaic practices.

You are dealing with a figure of speech, poetic imagery

Really? And this is your interpretation I suppose, and therefore must be right? I don't see anything poetic in His commandment, nor any need for poetic license, but a simple command which is very clear: ethnos means a tribe or nation, and His Apostles were to make disciples of all the nations of the world (Jews and Gentiles alike).

I have a hard time believing you are using these mediocre arguments to support a human run organization having spiritual sovereignty of all the people in the world and a gatekeeper to God Almighty Himself

And I have even greater difficulty believing that some people can be so in love with themselves as to believe they are the true interpreters of everything and all, dismissing corporate knowledge of 2,000 years of an unbroken organism.

Contrary to your imagination, the Church carefully recorded everything it did. Fragmentary and complete documents serve as verifiable recordings as to what the early Church did, what the liturgy looked like, how it was done, etc.

The only oral Tradition you so vehemently object to is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, for He wrote nothing, and what was written about His unwritten teaching is in the Gospels, reduced to writing anywhere from 30 to 60 years after the Pentecost. Until the Gospels were written, the entire Church was run on oral tradition passed on by the Apostles' memory.

He did make that happen. I can, right now, kneel and pray to God and He will meet my need, unless it is selfish

He did NOT! And your example is disingenuous. I wrote "If Christ wanted everyone to read the Bible and interpret it as they please He would have made that happen." Clearly, historically, verifiably, He did not! Otherwise He would have given everyone a Bible, with the New Testament in it, just as he multiplied the fish, He would gave given enough Bibles for everyone to read. And He would have said "Read and understand!" He did not do that. He commissioned hand-picked men to do the work of "making disciples of all nations."

How do we know any oral "Tradition" was really preached?

Simple: we believe it. The Apostles preached orally what Christ preached orally until they wrote the Gospels. By all accounts, the earliest Gospels were not written until about 65 A.D., some 30 years after Christ, and for those 30 years all the Apostles who knew Him preached what he said from their memory. But, we believe that, guided by the Spirit, sent by the Father through the Son, at the pentecost, the Apostles' memories remained true and incorrupt. Otherwise, we couldn't trust the New Testament. We must presume that the authors of all the books of the Bible were "insipred" by the Holy Spirit; otherwise everything is up for criticism and doubt in the Bible.

You need to read the history of the Bible to get an idea when things came into play. Needless to say, after the Gospels were written, the Church never preached anything based on oral tradition.

When an individual, thought his own agency, can reach salvation and eternal life, by seeking the Kingdom, which is within each individual

What you are saying here is not Christianity. This is closer to Buddhism, imo. An individual can not reach his or her own salvation. Christianity teaches that only God saves. We are not instruments of our salvation.

I will agree with you that some sects are drifting toward the heretical fringe

Really? And how do you define "heresy?"

but, then, the Catholic church is awash is sin and sodomy

I am pinging annalex to answer that. This comment is out of line. I will ask you to prove that the "Catholic Church is awash in sin and sodomy." [but be careful lest you eat your own crow with feathers on this one].

So you can't refute what I said?

No, it was so silly I had to laugh out loud.

Jesus was all the time reasoning with the scribes and Pharisees over scripture

Then, maybe, you can explain to me by virtue of reason the mystery of Incarnation, or Resurrection, for starters.

Truth is, Christ never reasoned with anyone. He simply told them the correct interpretation and the truth. That's what we believe, and that's not something we arrived at by virtue of reason, just as we blindly believe that He was and is God the Word Incarnate, that He suffered and died on the Cross and on the third day resurrected. We have no logical or rational "explanation" for this. Faith based on reason is not religion but rationalism.

You cannot hear what I say

You are saying the only church is you (self). Actually, Christianity is a communion of souls. We are one in Christ, but the NT is also clear that this means one theology not billions of individual and relative theologies, just right for everyone's taste and comfort. Relativism is not what Christ preached. Relativism is what you preach, or so it seems to me.

You also deny that there is One true Church, the one that was founded by Christ and given to the Apostles. This, then, Apostolic Church, established by Christ, holds on to the teachings and traditions of the Apostles, and their unbroken line of episcopal successors, as documented in great detail, draws its authority from the Apostolic commission of its clergy, has been universal before the last of the Apostles died at the very end of the first century A.D. (we know because it was written, among others, by +Ignatius, bishop of Antioch — ordained bishop by none other than +Peter, the Apostle who walked and talked with Christ — who called it catholic) and ever since.

This, then Catholic and Apostolic Church, the only One commissioned by Christ, is the true Church which you deny and offer instead a multitude of "personal" churches, based on "inner feelings," and God knows what else.

I hear you. Trust me. I hear every word you say.

Likewise, I do not feel any personal animosity to the Protestants, who, after all founded this country which I love. I also agree that we find very much in common and are all attacked as Christians from several quarters. Besides, it is in discussions like these ones that we understand better our own belief system, as well as other Christians'.

I use those two verses is because they pretty much sum up the scriptural relationship of man and God, and man's access to God.

If that were true, there would be no need of any other scripture. Since the other scripture is there, -- let alone since questions like that of the Purgatory or the role of Mary vex us and they are not fully explained in the scripture, -- we need the entire revelation available to us, and much of it speaks of the social character of Christ's teaching. Catholics are often accused of basing their entire theology on John 6 and Matthew 16. If we were, that would have been wrong.

I don't believe that accorded her status to be prayed to, or worshiped in any way, which acts of faith are reserved for Him and His Father.

Of course not. Mary is not to be worshiped and her powers are all secondary to Christ's. A prayer to Mary is always intercessory prayer for graces that come from her Son alone.

I don't find much, if anything at all, to disagree regarding the rest of your post.

Have it your way. I know when I'm wasting my time. I've said all I have to say. God bless you and I hope He leads to the truth.