Catholic Mariology, Authority, and Various Other Qualms of Protestants Considering Conversion

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | 11 February 2004 | Dave Armstrong

[annalex]

Catholic Mariology, Authority, and Various Other Qualms of Protestants Considering Conversion

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

[originally uploaded on 11 February 2004]

[Derived from actual correspondence with one such person (without violating any confidences): hence the use of first-person address]

If you consider yourselves actually out of the Protestant position, then I will simply have to help persuade you of the Catholic one, so you can get out of this limbo. I know you are the type of people who want to be really sure of what you believe. That's good, and I admire it. I advise folks in this position to take their time and not rush into anything. But at the same time, of course I want to help you feel totally comfortable with the Catholic outlook. If you're anything like me, you hate being uncertain and unsure. It's no fun.

My wife (who grew up Catholic) wasn't really "against" the Catholic Church. She came into Protestantism mainly because there was good fellowship to be had, and the local Assemblies of God church was where "things were happening." A sad commentary . . . I'm glad she did, otherwise we may never have met. I still remember the day that the lovely young girl with the "sad" but beautiful big "French" eyes visited our singles group. She jokes about how three or four guys that night cornered her and started running down the Catholic Church and acted most rude and obnoxious, but I didn't do that at all, and showed her my fall color photographs. :-)

I used to be in Inter-Varsity, and I was a campus missionary in the late 80s (independently; out of my church). That all collapsed and was an abysmal "failure." I was sort of in a place where you are at: not knowing what was in the future for me. My dreams had collapsed and it made no sense. I didn't want to do anything except apologetics and evangelism. That was my calling. But here I am, 15 years later, a full-time apologist! God works in mysterious ways. If someone had told me in 1986 that I would be a Catholic apologist and author, I would have taken them straight to an insane asylum, to make sure they were committed. LOL


I always advise potential converts that the road to the Church is not undertaken with Protestant methods. One doesn't "figure everything out" one-by-one and then make the leap. That is the Protestant method, and it is very ingrained (I know, firsthand). When you become a Catholic, at some point you simply accept the Church's authority because it is an entity far far greater than yourself. You may not understand everything, but who does, anyway?

What you come to see is that this is the Church and authority structure -- with all its human foibles and terrible, scandalous shortcomings in practice - that was ordained by God, and how He intended it to be. The true doctrine and "apostolic deposit" was passed down and it has been known all along. It isn't to be discovered in every generation, or "re-invented" like the wheel. All other knowledge works the same way (science, engineering, mathematics, musical theory, the received outlines of history, legal precedents, etc.), yet when it comes to religion, somehow people think that it is this entirely individualistic and subjective affair. It's very weird when you sit down and analyze it.

Oftentimes, if you ask such people what they think the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, it is clear that they don't understand it. True, millions of Catholics don't, either (the "ignorant" are, unfortunately, always with us, just like the poor), but neither do most Protestants. One must at least know what it is they are rejecting. One major reason why I do apologetics is that I want folks to know WHY they believe WHAT they believe. It builds faith and confidence, and it helps to incorporate reason into faith and theology.

Women approach the prospect of possible conversion in a very slow, deliberate, "holistic," instinctual, more practical way, whereas men tend to be far more abstract and propositional (one might describe the difference as "problem-solving" vs. "life experience and spiritual truths realized on a deep instinctive and emotional level of a whole person" - though my words are very inadequate to express my thoughts here). I hasten to add that I don't think one method is superior to the other: they are simply different, based on how God made us (if anything, I think the "female way" is the better of the two, if I had to choose). Kimberly Hahn's tape on Mary (which I heard in person) is one of the most incredible, moving talks I have ever heard: I think she is wonderful. On my Converts Page I have a separate section for women converts for this reason: their journeys tend to be of a very different nature than mens'.

When I first started thinking seriously about Catholic Mariology, I approached it in a more right-brained, typically "non-male" way than one might expect from me. I had been accustomed to giving Mary great honor, as the greatest woman (and indeed, created person, period) who ever lived. She was awesome to me: the very picture of womanhood and femininity.

When my Catholic friend started explaining to me how Mary was the "New Eve", that fascinated me and resonated in my spirit with my understanding of how God works in other ways. It didn't strike me as "unbiblical" or excessive or "corrupt" at all. The concept is simple: Eve said "no" to God and Mary said "yes." Eve's choice led to the Fall, and Mary's led to the Incarnation and Redemption. She represented the human race (and for once we got it right). God wanted it to be that way. Human beings had fallen based on free choice and God wanted them to be redeemed by a free choice as well (as opposed to being declared saved apart from their free will). But Mary's choice was, of course, steeped in God's grace and entirely derived and enabled by it. She wasn't doing this on her own power, as if she were intrinsically superior to all other creatures.

As I recall, this was the first step of my deepening Mariology. But it wasn't really that big of an issue for me. My issues were infallibility; especially papal infallibility. I thought that was the most absurd and implausible thing ever to cross the mind of man . . .

The very notion that you as an individual have to "make all the Catholic pieces fit into a big puzzle" presupposes the Protestant idea of private judgment. You don't have to. What you have to do is become convinced that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, and the Guardian of the Apostolic Deposit. Once you get to that point, you can accept all that it teaches as a reasonable, plausible choice, just as we do in all other fields of knowledge. The scientist accepts the laws of thermodynamics or Newton's laws of motion, etc.

The Catholic accepts all that the Catholic Church teaches because he believes that the Church was guided by God to be infallible in matters of faith and morals: in those things which Catholics are bound to believe as dogma. And beyond that, he believes that God desired that His theological and spiritual truth be known with a high degree of certainty: not that people have to search their entire lives to find it. Doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that sound like how God would want things to be, since Christianity has to do with the most important things in life?

It's really not that different from Protestantism's approach to the Bible. They believe that the Bible is inspired and inerrant because God desired it to be so, and because it is His word (thus, could not be otherwise). Men could have corrupted the Bible, BUT for God's protection of it. Sinful men wrote it (David, Paul, Peter), but that didn't stop it from being inerrant and inspired and infallible because God saw to it that it would be so.

And you can't figure out every "problem" of biblical exegesis or hermeneutics or difficult passages. No one can. If every "problem" and seeming contradiction had been resolved, then the Bible scholars would have far less to talk about, wouldn't they? There wouldn't be books like Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Obviously, if there were no "difficulties" at all, that book wouldn't be written or needed. You may believe that all the difficulties can theoretically be resolved and that there are answers whether we find them or not (as I do), but
that is different from actually resolving them and attaining certainty.

Yet Protestants believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant and infallible by faith, based on what they know, and existing strong evidences. They are justified in believing this, and it is rational. It is not blind faith. The Catholic attitude towards their Church is very similar: we accept in faith the notion that God wanted to have one Church represent His doctrine and truth in its fullness (not excluding many elements of truth in other Christian traditions at all). To do so, He had to specially protect it from error (just as He did with the Bible-writers).

The gift or charism of infallibility is a lesser one than inspiration. It is easier to believe that God simply prevented popes from teaching error and falsehood in certain circumstances (a fundamentally preventive measure) than to believe that He positively inspired the words of Bible-writers and caused them to write his very inspired ("God-breathed" - theopneustos) words. Why should one be harder to believe than the other? If one can believe the greater miracle, why not the lesser? It doesn't rest upon weak, fallible men, but upon God Almighty.

This is a roundabout way of saying that one comes to believe that the Church has authority to declare on doctrines and once having done so, the person accepts teachings like those on Mary which may be hard to understand. We acknowledge our own limitations and weaknesses and blind spots and biases. The inquirer into Catholicism and Catholic Mariology can also read stuff like my papers on Mary, which are designed to show that the teachings are not at all unbiblical or anti-biblical (though often not explicitly biblical).

If the doctrines can be shown to be biblically-plausible or at least possible, then much of the battle is won. I find that the more difficult thing to dissuade Protestants of is the more presuppositional idea that everything must be explicitly biblical, and that sola Scriptura (Scripture as the final infallible authority-in-practice over against popes and councils) is true. That's a whole separate discussion, but suffice it to say for now that it is not at all clear in the Bible itself that this is true. If it is true, then it is a truth no more explicit in the Bible (I say, far less so) than Mariology itself. And this gets into questions of logical incoherence and circularity.

None of us have all the answers. At some point we must bow to authority. Every Protestant does this, just as every Catholic does: they simply give authority to different things in different ways. Another huge discussion . . . The Bible itself (even presupposing sola Scriptura, for the sake of argument) certainly talks a lot about both authority and the Church. People differ on what exactly it teaches, but there is something there. Paul discusses tradition quite a bit. And he shows no indication that there is any doubt in his mind as to what is contained in that tradition.

You will have no choice but to follow your conscience, whatever the cost, if it leads you to Catholicism. The good news is that, oftentimes, Protestant friends and family are not as alarmed and offended and horrified by conversion as we think they might be. If we continue to love them and show that we are no different relationship-wise, then they accept it. It may take a little time (especially if they are anti-Catholic), but they'll come around. When I converted, my mother (a lifelong Methodist) somehow thought I would be this different person. I simply told her, "look; I'm the same old me. I won't be any different from the son that you have known all along. I've just moved from one brand of Christianity to another."

Some people may forsake you and think you're weird or whatever. Others may refuse to talk about those issues but otherwise you will get along fine (I have a relationship like that with a very dear Protestant friend of mine, with whom I used to live and work in the 80s - it is an unspoken agreement to avoid all the controversial issues). But this is no different from what Jesus told us to expect, anyway. He said families would be divided and that discipleship was costly. If other people can't accept our choices made under God, in conscience and faith, with the use of reason and study and bathed with prayer, then in the end that is their problem. It may be difficult and painful and hurtful, for sure, but no one ever promised that following Jesus was a bed of roses.

But it is not as hard as you think it will be. Trust me on this. God has brought you to this place to be a witness. It will be exciting, I am convinced, and you will be happy to be able to share what you have learned, after the initial (quite understandable and justified) fears that you are going through now. You are in the place you are in because God ordained it so, as He ordains all things, in His Providence. He will give you words to speak when the time comes to share your faith and your new discoveries. And it will be some of the most spiritually-fulfilling times you have ever had. I hope I am not being presumptuous. I'm trying to encourage you. Having gone through the "tunnel" and emerged out of it, I can see the light at the end of it, whereas you cannot right now because you are in the tunnel.

It is a good to want to be very sure and confident about Catholic teaching and especially the biblical rationale for them, for the sake of explaining to Protestat friends after conversion. I wholeheartedly agree with that. As with all apologetics, you shouldn't feel that you have to have a quick answer at all times. You don't. I don't. Nobody does. You can always say that you need to study so-and-so and get back to them. No one has all the answers -- let alone quickly, on the spot. This is good, though, because it shows people that you are:

1) honest;

2) not proud or arrogant and claiming to know everything, but humble, with an admission of your own limitations;

3) fully aware that such journeys (including your own) are not all based on reason and apologetics in the first place, but on God's grace, which often goes beyond words and quick responses.

To begin to give an answer with regard to Mariology, one way is to argue that more fully-developed Mariology is not inconsistent with biblical analogies. In other words, if a Protestant is objecting to the very notions as "unbiblical," then if you can show them that directly analogous notions are quite biblical, then the Mariological ones must be, too. Therefore, they are not excessive, because they flow from explicitly biblical modes of thought, at least. It's a bit subtle, but I have come to love this form of analogical argument. That comes right from Cardinal
Newman: my "hero." In this vein, see my paper (dialogue with a fairly well-known and solid Protestant apologist, Robert Bowman, who does a lot of great work): Dialogue on the Biblical Analogies to the Concept of Mary Mediatrix.

The notion of Mary as a mediatrix of all graces is a very difficult one for most Protestants to even grasp, let alone accept. I think it was based on centuries of reflection by very holy and wise Christians, of what it means to be the Theotokos and Immaculate. It comes (arguably it developed from) the idea of the New Eve. We know that in Adam, all men fell. The devil caused that, but we participated as a human race in rebellion against God; we are one entity: the human race; God's creatures, so we could all fall "in Adam" as the Scripture says (this is explicit teaching in the Bible).

So when we get to the "yes" of Eve and the historical beginning of the redemption of the human race and Christ's work for us, we see that, again, God chose to involve a human being. He could have simply said (bypassing the Incarnation and the Cross) "this group of people are saved, and these are not" - based on simply His election with no ultimate regard for human choices or based on some "middle knowledge" whereby He incorporates what He knows of how people will follow Him or not (as a function of His omniscience).

He could have chosen to not become a man. God could have done anything He wanted to do. But He chose to be born of a woman and to involve the human race in its own redemption, in order to "undo" the Fall. Once the Incarnation was God's choice, then Mary became "necessary" as a human being, to make it possible. Her very body was intimately connected with God Incarnate. It is a mystery and a beautiful truth of almost unspeakable majesty and glory and wonder.

So God involved Mary: a human being, in that. I would argue, then, that if God could do all that: then why is it implausible that He could choose to use Mary as an intercessory vessel in His plan of redemption and cause all grace to originate from Himself (of course; by definition) but to merely flow through her? He had already involved her in the Incarnation, by means of the Annunciation. The human race was already raised to extraordinary heights by God becoming Man. So why not go one step further and give Mary this awesome responsibility of being a vessel through which all grace can flow?

The amazing thing is that God would use human beings like that (by extension, any of us) at all. But He chose to do so. And if Mary can be Theotokos and if all of us can potentially be vessels of grace (like a pipe serves to bring water: having no intrinsic relation to the water and not "producing" it at all), how is it implausible for her to be chosen by God to participate in His redemptive plan as an entirely secondary, not intrinsically necessary agent?

This is typically how God works: for example, consider procreation (note the very word). We don't create another human soul as parents. Yet without us (as secondary, contributing causes), these souls do not come into being, because we provide the genetic matter and the physical element which along with the soul makes a human being. God actually lets us participate in the "creation" of a human being and an eternal soul. He wants to involve people. Catholic Mariology starts with this assumption: that Mary had a sublime place in the redemptive plan of God and was the person He wanted to use in the most extraordinary fashion. It fits with how He works in many other areas.

Upon reflection, then, this is seen to be not at all contrary to biblical teaching or what we know about God. It is not explicit, but there can be no prima facie objection to it from the Bible. A sola Scriptura position will disallow it from the outset, but if that objection can be overcome on other grounds, then it is quite worthy of belief. I would recommend reading these two papers in this order:

The Imitation of Mary
A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix

Many Protestants have a real hard time with the repetition in the Rosary, and what they see as an extreme over-emphasis on Mary, But repetition itself is not at all unbiblical. In Psalm 136, e.g., the same exact phrase is repeated for 26 straight verses. See my paper: A Fictional Dialogue on "Vain Repetition," the Mass, and the Liturgy.

One must understand the functional purpose of the repetitive prayers of the Rosary. They serve as a sort of "rhythm" or "background" of the meditations, just as music serves as the "carrier" of the lyrics, in hymns or even classical and secular music. It is a (rather ingenious) way to concentrate the mind on the spiritual things at hand: "Hail Mary, full of grace" . . . Repetition itself is not a bad thing. Protestants often have pet phrases and things repeated over and over ("praise God," "hallelujah," "thank you Jesus," "glory to God," etc.). The repetition is not implying a superiority of Mary to Jesus at all: it is simply a technique to foster the meditation: which itself is mostly centered on Jesus. And most of the Hail Mary is right in the Bible, as you know, so it is simply repeating (mostly) a Bible passage. In that sense, it is little different from Psalm 136 and many other such repetitious passages.

Many Protestants feel that the form prayers of Catholics are too formulaic and dry and uttered without feeling or passion. But this is often merely an example of personal bias. I understand this because I was extremely "un-liturgical" as a Protestant, and couldn't relate to that at all. I was a "Jesus Freak" who spent most of my time worshiping God in free-form, spontaneous worship services (often with rock music). I didn't like liturgy. It bored me and didn't move my spirit at all. Yet I now attend Latin Mass and absolutely love it. This form concentrates my mind and spirit on worship (along with our gorgeous German Gothic church) far more than the spontaneous worship ever did (though I continue to like that form, too: another case of "both/and" -- not "either/or").

Besides, serving God is not always about "feeling." I would hope that all Christians feel things, and deeply, but sometimes we have to do stuff that we don't particularly feel. It's true that Catholic prayers (in the heart of those uttering them) can become stale and sort of "dull", but that is not intrinsic to the prayers themselves, and has more to do with the internal dispositions of the person. Obviously, we could not oppose formula per se because that would take out the Bible as well. Protestant "chanting" of verses like John 3:16 could very well come under the same criticism. In other words, it is a general human failing, not a particularly Catholic one. A paper which deals with a similar issue would be the following: Sacramentalism and Inner Disposition.

I only hope you (if you decide to cross over) are not disappointed with our own share of nonsense and ludicrosity, on the human level, in the Catholic Church. I am reminded of something Malcolm Muggeridge wrote:

As Hilaire Belloc truly remarked, the Church must be in God's hands because, seeing the people who have run it, it couldn't possibly have gone on existing if there weren't some help from above. I also felt unable to take completely seriously . . . the validity or permanence of any form of human authority . . . There is . . . some other process going on inside one, to do with faith which is really more important and more powerful. I can no more explain conversion intellectually than I can explain why one falls in love with someone whom one marries. It's a very similar thing . . .

The conversion process is very strange - even frightening at times -, yet wonderfully exhilarating as it comes to a conclusion (as any of us who have experienced it can testify). We mustn't rush people who are going through this. And we must accept the genuine, sincere nature of their struggles. Those are my "guiding principles" - at any rate - when I counsel people in this life-situation.

[FourtySeven]

Like I said, this is a good passage for our discussion. In fact, the entire passage of 1 Cor 1-3 (chapters 1-3) are good.

Basically, what I see when I read these chapters is St. Paul’s writing a function of Jesus’ statements, “those who love their life will loose it; those who hate their life for my sake will gain it.”(cf Matt 10:39, Matt 16:25, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, Luke 17:33, John 12:25) and, “what good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and loose his soul?” (cf Matt 16:26, Mark 8:36)

What Jesus showed us in those striking statements is, indeed, what St. Paul later goes on to elaborate upon in the passage contained in chapters 1-3, with the focus being 1 Cor 2:16 “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

We must “hate our life to gain it”. What does this really mean? Does this mean we must hate ourselves, that is, hate what God created, to gain life in Christ? Of course not. There are many other interpretations we could examine, some true, some not, but the point that relates to our discussion here is one that also compliments what St. Paul is writing in those 3 chapters. We must “hate” the ways of the world. We must “hate” our love for worldly things, if such love is put above our love for Christ and the Truth HE offers. When Christ says what He does in the passages above, what He’s saying is, (in relation to our discussion) is that we must not use the “wisdom of the world” in finding our own destiny, our own path in life, or, ultimately, in finding the truth.

That is, in many ways and in many cultures (including sadly the Christian culture), there exist many biases and preconceptions; these are the “wisdom of the world” that St. Paul warns against in his passage above, and indeed, what Jesus exhorts we deny ourselves in the passages above. We mustn’t let ourselves be hindered by these biases, in our search for the Truth, which is really, the search for our own destiny. This is a fundamental, human, question: What are we made for? What is our destiny? What *is* the ultimate truth about our existence? This question resides in every human heart.

Unfortunately, as I stated above, almost immediately after birth we are subjected to biases, biases that ultimately prevent our free search for the Truth. These biases can come in many forms, religious, economic, political, scientific. All of these are the “wisdom of the world” that St. Paul warns against. Our task, as true human beings is to *not* deny our heart what it really wants, which is ultimate Truth, infinite Truth, and thus, it is a “work” (as Fr. Guissani would put it) to rid ourselves of all the biases, the preconceived notions we have built up over our lifetime, to get to the Truth. This work is fundamentally a focus on a desire for the Truth, no matter what it means for our biases. IOW, we may have to put away some of these biases (these childish ways), and deny ourselves what was comfortable for us before (”milk”, the “wisdom of the world”, the “wisdom of the Greeks”), if we are to truly find what our heart desires.

If we are to truly find what our heart desires, we must have the “mind of Christ”. Note, this doesn’t deny a role for “wisdom” or say that “all wisdom is bad”. The main point to remember here is that what Jesus said, what St. Paul said, is that simply, we must not let any *man* teach us who is using his own biases, his own preconceptions, i.e., the “wisdom of the world”. This includes ourselves. We cannot approach God with any preconception, any *worldly* bias. We are to strive for the wisdom of God, and search for the Truth, because in that, and only in that, do we find our hearts satisfied. (cf Rom 12:2, 1 Th 5:21)

[Truth Defender]

I don't claim that men cannot err or be sinners or fail in their attempts to imitate Christ. But, the Church was built on the Rock, and both the Keys and the Holy Spirit were given to it and, as an authority, is protected from declaring false dogma. I'm going to guess you try and claim that the "rock" of the Church is really St. Peter's declaration, not him - am I right?

Most assuredly NOT! And the consent of the great majority of the church fathers agree with my understanding and exegesis of Mt. 16:18. These say that the "rock" is not Peter, nor his declaration, but the person of Jesus Christ. If you care to argue this, remember that the Papacy claim their "interpretation" is the "unanimous consent of the church fathers," which is demonstratably wrong. Thusly, your explanation above is wrong, which one could make the judgment that the Papacy's teaching here is false dogma!

[Truth Defender]

We cannot approach God with any preconception, any *worldly* bias. We are to strive for the wisdom of God, and search for the Truth, because in that, and only in that, do we find our hearts satisfied. (cf Rom 12:2, 1 Th 5:21)

Well put! Now if only readers could accept it.

[unlearner]

“All you did was reassert empty claims about what the Scripture does and does not do.”

Most of what I said was directly supported by scripture in my post. Is what the scripture says “empty” to you? Do you not accept the Bible as true?

“No they [scriptures] don’t [assert their own authority]. The Scripture doesn’t even list what IS Scripture.”

I already cited scriptures that do both: Luke 24:44-48 where Jesus named ALL of the divisions of what we know as the Old Testament which was ALL of the scriptures revealed up to that point. The early Church relied on these scriptures and on living witnesses who heard Christ’s teaching first-hand.

Jesus responded by quoting from Scripture when He was tempted by the Devil:

Deuteronomy 8:3
...man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD.

The identification of what is Scripture is plain for the believer. The unbeliever cannot see it. And understanding the Bible presupposes a certain amount of knowledge on the part of the reader, not the least of which is language. “Scripture” is a Biblical term used to refer to the written word of God.

Your statement does not sound like anything Christ or the apostles ever said. It does have a striking semblance to the words of Satan though, namely “has God said...” See 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 which I noted before, and Genesis 3:1.

“Jesus left a Church to guide his people, not a book.”

Jesus left His people with the scriptures (there were no “books” technically speaking) AND the Comforter, Who is the Holy Spirit:

John 14:16-18, 26
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you... But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

He did not leave His people with a Church. His people ARE The Church:

Acts 2:47
And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Hebrews 12:23
to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven...

“Again, if it’s so simple, why so many different ‘Bible’ Christians?”

Because God has hidden these things from many, and they do not have ears to hear:

Luke 10:21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

Romans 11:8
Just as it is written: “ God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, To this very day.”

And because the day of judgment, in which the wheat and tares will be separated, has not arrived.

Matthew 13:28-30

He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up? But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

“Correcting you could become a full-time job!”

I am making a sincere effort to correct myself by studying scripture to clarify and refine my beliefs with greater precision. Studying these topics serves this purpose for me even if you are not persuaded. However, I will add that you are in great error and have a great need for correction and repentance. You do not know God’s Word or His power, and you fail to discern the Lord’s body, which is the Church.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[unlearner]

“Matthew 1:25 does not say anything about their relations after the birth of Jesus. “

What it says is that Mary and Joseph did not have marital relations before Christ was born. To expand this to include the remainder of her natural life is more than idle speculation, it is adding to scripture.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

I will not post the entire contents of 2 Peter 1 which clarifies the role of scripture, but I will summarize certain major points. Peter’s conclusion of this chapter says that scriptural revelation is never of a private interpretation. He leads up to this point with an illustration. He follows the point with an explanation.

An example of a private interpretation would be cunningly devised fables (such as the unnecessary addition to the Biblical account you are advocating). Rather than being invented fables, the apostles were eyewitnesses of real events. And their experiences were openly proclaimed, not passed on in secret or hidden in parables. The meaning (i.e. interpretation) was declared plainly, and openly, i.e. not limited to a special class of privileged followers as the Gnostics claimed.

The thrust of this chapter can be summed in a few points. First, the recipients of Peter’s letter had EVERYTHING they needed for life and godliness, by knowing the Lord:

2 Peter 1:3
as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,

Secondly, Peter saw the need to write down the knowledge that had been verbally passed to these early believers so as to have a permanent written record after Peter’s death (which Christ had foretold).

Third, as I already pointed out, this knowledge of Christ, verbally shared by Peter, and now recorded for us here, is public rather than private information.

While I agree that the scriptures are silent on many things, understood in the proper context, this does not imply any insufficiency with regard to the knowledge needed for the Christian life and godliness which is found solely in the revealed knowledge of the Lord according to Peter.

Paul concurs by asserting the sufficiency of scripture to completely supply our needs for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

“If that woman were inimportant, she would not be named, her words would not be recorded, her presence at the foot of the Cross and her adoption of the disciple, her presence at Pentecost — would not be necessary to record.”

We agree that Mary was an important person written about in the Bible. This does not justify an imbalanced, over-emphasis on her role nor the practices of praying to her or her images.

“First, the Bible says a whole lot about her, including her veneration being approved and expanded to all saints by Christ (Luke 11:27-28).

This passage says nothing of the sort:

And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

The blessing on Mary is not denied by this passage or by me. Yet Jesus here says, in contrast with the statement, there is a greater blessing to be had by keeping God’s Word. I cannot for the life of me imagine how you support your claim pertaining Mary using this passage.

Mary is an important figure in the Bible. God has provided many significant details about many lives in the Bible. Many things are left out. While historical facts, learning more about the language used, learning facts about the times, places, etc. of the writings, are all helpful to the goal of meditating on scripture, they must not be exalted above measure. Every mountain is brought low in the presence of Christ Who is central to the meaning of all scriptures.

Look at John the Baptist. He was greater than Mary in their role of introducing Christ to the world. Mary gave birth to Him and nurtured him, but it was John who proclaimed Him to the world. According to Christ, no one (to that point) was greater of those born to women (Mary was born to a woman) than John:

Matthew 11:11
Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Yet, look at what John says about his own ministry:

John 3:30-31
He must increase, but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.

While we can benefit from learning what the scriptures say about John and Mary, they only serve to draw our focus to the One Who is above all - Christ Jesus.

“The Church is a body of Christ, so no. It is possible for individual clergy to sin and err, yes. “

You are failing to discern the body of Christ. The body is made up of parts or “members”. If my right hand steals, my left hand must also go to jail. The Bible says clearly that believers are members of Christ’s body, and each is affected by the weaknesses, sufferings and sins of other members:

1 Corinthians 12:12-27
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be?
But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.

And in the Apocalypse, Christ repeatedly told churches to repent.

Churches do sin when their members sin.

[unlearner]

“What do you do when the Scripture does not say anything?”

More often than not the Scriptures are far more relevant than we realize. They require more than half-hearted interest and vague familiarity. We are instructed to meditate on God’s Word day and night. When there is no specific command of scripture, the principles set forth in them still are our guide.

For example, the command not to murder applies to many situations. The Bible does not need to prohibit poisoning, hanging, or shooting to death a person in cold blood. The general command is broad enough.

But I think I see what you mean. The Bible does not specifically tell me what kind of car I should buy or drive. However, this decision can be based on Biblical teaching such as the importance of frugality, avoiding the financial entanglement of debts, humility, serving others, etc. God also has provided many resources to help us. We have the Holy Spirit. We have various authorities to guide and protect. These include family, government, and local church leaders. God often leads us to wise counselors and guides us through circumstances. He also gives us wisdom when we ask. (In His grace He often gives us when we don’t ask.)

“Our bishops are not apostles, but are descendants of them in a line of consecrations. This is a historical fact, test away.”

But you are answering to the fact that Scripture directs the followers of Christ to validate the legitimacy of the claims of divinely given authority. Titles are not the issue. Apostles, prophets, teachers, elder / bishops, or any other have tests that must be passed. The church has always had to defend against claims of divinely appointed spiritual authority up to and including false claims of writings claiming to be from an apostle such as Paul, as well as those who even claim “I am Christ”, which our Lord warned us of.

When the some in Corinth questioned Paul’s authority, he did not merely say he should not be questioned. He laid out the evidence. He was a witness of the resurrection. He was directly taught by Christ. He performed signs of an apostle. He performed the ministerial work of an apostle. He had the commendation of an apostle. He suffered as an apostle. His ministry produced the spiritual fruit of apostolic labor and teaching. Yet he still said that it would be the duty of believers to reject his message or the message of anyone else, including heavenly angels, if they ever contradicted the authorized message:

Galations 1:7-9
...there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed...

If Paul insists on such a test of authority, do you think those who claim even less authority are exempt?

What if a bishop disqualifies himself from service? There are essential requirements of the bishopric laid out in scripture. If one apostatizes do you claim he keeps the authority of his office?

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,

If the Bible commands believers to separate from professed believers who commit sins against the body of Christ (such as fornication and idolatry), do you think bishops or other church leaders are held to a lower standard?

James 3:1
My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

Luke 12:48
...For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

(See also 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 mentioned in my previous post.)

“When there are two reasonable interpretations, you have to recourse to something extra scriptural.”

You would have to be more specific for me to know how you intend to apply this approach for me to either agree or disagree. While a statement like this could be true in a certain context, it is also possible to make true statements that are used to later justify actions that are not originally intended. If Satan can twist and use scripture, our words can certainly be misused even if they are true, correct and well-intentioned.

“Your claims of being ‘willing to be obedient to the Holy Ghost’ is a meaningless phrase, which anyone, including — with greeater authority — any Catohlic prelate can make.”

It is not meaningless, since it represents what Christ said about our willingness to obey and what He said about the ministry of the Holy Spirit. However, you have a valid point about anyone being able to SAY they are willing and guided by God’s Spirit. That being the case, this claim does not alone carry authority. It is similar to Christ forgiving sins. Anyone could say “your sins are forgiven”, but it would not necessarily be true. On the other hand, He validated His power to forgive sins by a display of supernatural healing. Likewise, we can examine the fruit of the lives of those making a claim to be led of the Holy Spirit.

“nowhere does it say that Christ could not alsoo save His mother from any sin”

Well that is kind of my point. All evidence supports that Mary was a true believer and disciple of the Lord. Christ’s sinlessness was due to His intrinsic righteousness and holiness - His divine nature. It was not due to Mary. Mary was made perfect by the Saving blood of Christ in the same way we, who also have faith in Christ, are made perfect.

No one will enter Heaven except those who are as sinless as Christ. Fortunately, His righteousness is imputed to us through the channel of faith and on the basis of God’s grace. Mary, as we know, was partaker of that same grace.

Matthew 5:20
For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Revelation 21:27
But there shall by no means enter [the heavenly city] anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

[annalex]

Do you think Christ and Christ’s body i.e. the Church are distinct entitities?

There is the Eucharistic Christ present in the body, as well as the the Church being His mystical body. There is a distinction between the two.

I think you asked me a leading question so I will presume you wanted to talk about how Catholic ecclesiology relates to Catholic soteriology. I will make a few comments in that direction, and if it indeed interests you, we can take it up further. Also, you asked what I think, but both you and I should be primarily interested in what the Church teaches. I try to reflect the Church's teaching in what I post. Now, I may misunderstand it, and then someone with greater knowledge should correct me, but I try to avoid personal speculation even if I have some such.

You should know that two principles overrule any of the discussion: the sovereign ability of Christ to have extraordinary mercy on anyone based on the condition of the man's heart; and our inability, and direct commandment not to attempt, to judge souls. All we can do is see how the revealed Word of God applies and reach conclusions based on outward signs and behaviors. The operative word for that process is "ordinary". For example, we say that baptism is necessary for salvation "ordinarily": that is, we have revealed doctrine according to which baptism is necessary. What happens in exceptional circumstance when baptism is desired but unavailable is not ordinary process of salvation, and all we can do is hope and speculate.

I should also probably mention that we do not use the word "saved" (or "justified") in the same sense as most Protestants (who routinely talk about "being saved" as an event in their life). We are saved, or not, at the end of our lives. Baptism puts us on the road to salvation, and our whole life we work toward it under grace. So, when a Protestant hears that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church he thinks that he has just been damned to hell, while in fact he has been told that we don't know if he will be saved or not when his hour of death and judgement comes. Conversely, when we say that sacramental absolution and the Eucharist save, we mean that one who received these sacraments has the certainty to be saved if he commits no future sins till he dies.

With this said... There is but one visible Church into which all Christians are baptized. That is the Catholic Church: everyone: a Protestant, an Orthodox, a Roman Catohlic, so long as he is validly baptized, is at that point Catholic and he is justified at that point.

"Validly" here means by water, in the name of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, and with serious intention of Christian sponsors. If the baptisee is of adult sound mind, he should repent of his sins. The method -- sprinkling, immersion, etc. is not important, and the age of the baptisee is not important. Christ -- not the baptisee and his state of mind -- is Who makes baptism work.

If one is baptized and immediately afterwards dies, he goes to heaven. "Baptism now saves you", teaches St. Peter. Of course, in most cases he goes on living at makes various decisions. He might commit personal sin. If he is privileged to receive Catholic or Orthodox sacraments he should go to confession and strengthen himself with the Holy Eucharist and penitential work, and so, gradually, defeat sin, stay on the road to sanctity and die justified, "making his calling and election secure" (2 Peter 1:2-11).

But what if he is not Catholic or Orthodox (simplifying things let's call him Protestant)? Then his ability to repair sin is gravely limited: he can repent of it but the supernatural cleansing of a sacramental absolution is not there, and the supernatural strengthening of the Eucharist is not there either. At this point he relies on the mercy of Christ; his eventual salvation is in peril. The road to salvation on which his Baptism placed him is barely stepped upon. Further, typically he is separated from the Catholic Church not only by instances of personal sin, but also habitually -- he never considered himself Catholic, his faith does not include the faith in the Chruch or her sacraments. His Catholic baptism wears off quickly and he is no longer in the Church.

Now, he still can do much to advance his sanctification: he can follow the strong moral code his pastor will teach him, and he can get sanctified through the study and love of the Holy Scripture. He can do much with these extraordinary means of salvation, and put us lukewarm Catholics to shame with his love for the Lord and heroic virtues. One thing, however is necessary for us to say that his salvation is not far: a desire to find and unite with the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church that Christ set up on the rock of Peter (Mt. 16:16-19).

What of his culpability for leaving the Church? It is only there if it was an act of informed will. If someone grew up in a Protestant environment, and his Protestant culture lead him to his Protestant community of faith, he is not culpable. If on the other hand he spent his time insulting the Church or her saints, then such Protestant condemns himself and destroys the kernel of truth that his branch of Christianity taught him.

What of a non-baptized? Well, the same principle applies: did he follow the Divine Law to the extent known to him? Did he wish to know God by name? Did he wish to unite with what he does not know enough to call Catholic Church? On the other hand, did he reject Christ? Fight a war on His Church? Hate Christians for their faith?

As you can see, this doctrine is at the same time hopeful and Catholic-centered. The salvation comes from nowhere but the Catholic Church, yet paths people take to that Church may be very circuitious.

[FourtySeven]

Thank you.

God bless,

[annalex]

Thank you for an interesting sidebar. I only have a few comments.

Athenagoras, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine are a strange cast of characters. All four were given to heresies (Augustine corrected his), only St. Augustine is a canonized saint, but he is also a late Church father of somewhat limited appeal, despite his brilliance.

Is your theory that the soul is immortal if saved but undergoes destruction if condemned? That seems to contradict, for example, Mt 25:46. I don’t think the consensus of the fathers ever veered off this concept, that the soul is eternal both if saved and if condemned, based on the very clear teaching in Mt 25.

I couild not find kenfortier.com or any Ken fortier who would seem to be a scholar of scripture.

[annalex]

The mother of the male child of Rev 12

Don't be comical. "Male child"? Rev 12 tells us Who He is, does it not?

[xzins]

1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. 7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.

12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” 13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

[papertyger]

I misunderstood what you meant by wanting a more specific citation. You seem to be short with me; am I right?

I apologize for being short, insofar as it seemed you were perhaps avoiding the question or preparing to discount any response short of complete surrender ;o)

Anyway...I think it's possible you may not quite appreciate just how profound an effect "informed consent" has in mitigating the severity of sin. You can see the kernel of this in your citation with the inclusion of the term "willfully." Bear in mind this document was written to the Catholic faithful, and not necessarily formulated with an eye toward Protestant sensibilities.

For a fuller treatment of the Catholic understanding of the culpability of the separated brethren, please see the, admittedly later written, Vatican ll documents.

The RCC clearly states here that God, through the RCC, demands acceptance of the Assumption of Mary on the word of the RCC alone.

Well, the notion that word is insufficient is what divides us, now isn't it?

[Truth Defender]

Athenagoras, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine are a strange cast of characters. All four were given to heresies (Augustine corrected his), only St. Augustine is a canonized saint, but he is also a late Church father of somewhat limited appeal, despite his brilliance.

:-) All four of these fathers promoted Plato's theory on the immortal soul, and eventually the churches accepted that theory (although not quite like Plato taught). Augustine never corrected this heresy of his; and I agree that he is of limited appeal to the RCC.

Is your theory that the soul is immortal if saved but undergoes destruction if condemned? That seems to contradict, for example, Mt 25:46. I don’t think the consensus of the fathers ever veered off this concept, that the soul is eternal both if saved and if condemned, based on the very clear teaching in Mt 25.

Your question is leading, and so is your supposition. I completely agree with Mt. 25:46, but most likely not to your liking. Matthew 25:46, to be understood correctly, has to harmonize with all the other scriptures on that topic. And there are multiple scriptures that speak on it. I'll have to get back to you on this as I have some business to take care of right now. It will probably be Sunday afternoon before I'm able to do so.

I couild not find kenfortier.com or any Ken fortier who would seem to be a scholar of scripture.

Hmmm... click on this, Link to Ken's Web Site to find it. Ken does not put himself forth as a "biblical scholar" by any means, just a "biblical student." Click on the Menu item "Articles" and/or "C. Dickinson Articles" and a list will come up with the names of files; they are all in Adobe format.

[Truth Defender]

Sorry about the mixup link, here is the correct one.

Link to Web site

That should work better...

[papertyger]

Most of what I said was directly supported by scripture in my post.

No, most of what you said is supported by your interpretation of scripture. Don't confuse your word with God's Word.

I already cited scriptures that do both...

No, you didn't. There simply is nothing in the Bible that tells a reader the "Gospel of Mark" is Holy Writ, and the "Gospel of Peter" is not.

The identification of what is Scripture is plain for the believer.

Where does the Bible say that?

Your statement does not sound like anything Christ or the apostles ever said. It does have a striking semblance to the words of Satan though...

Same to ya, pal; I'm not the one twisting Scripture.

Jesus left His people with the scriptures (there were no “books” technically speaking) AND the Comforter, Who is the Holy Spirit...

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

And where does it say you WILL follow His lead?

He did not leave His people with a Church. His people ARE The Church

If that were true, He would not have told "His people" to go to "the Church" to settle disputes as in Matt 18:17.

Because God has hidden these things from many, and they do not have ears to hear:

Then which Bible Christians are these things NOT hidden from?

Furthermore, using Romans 11:8 the way you have is like using a shoe to drive a nail...you can do it, but don't expect anyone with a lick of sense to follow your example.

However, I will add that you are in great error and have a great need for correction and repentance. You do not know God’s Word or His power, and you fail to discern the Lord’s body, which is the Church.

FRiend, I appreciate the sincerity of your sentiments, but you couldn't be more wrong. I spent over twenty years as a "Bible Christian" and I hold these convictions not because I "don't" have knowledge of God's Word and Power, but because I "do!"

No doubt you'll think that boasting, but it is not. The simple fact is I was still a slave to sin as described by Paul in Romans 7 when I was "saved." It wasn't until I submitted myself to the Church Jesus founded and received His Body and Blood in the Eucharist that I was granted the grace to be set free from my torment under the law of sin and death.

There simply is no amount of Bible study that can take the place of the Holy Spirit!

[papertyger]

What it says is that Mary and Joseph did not have marital relations before Christ was born. To expand this to include the remainder of her natural life is more than idle speculation, it is adding to scripture.

No it isn't, but it is a common enough mistake made by Protestants and those unfamiliar with language and Scripture.

For example, as it says in ll Sam 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." Is that supposed to mean she had a child after the day of her death?

Of course not.

Similarly, in Acts 23:1 says "And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day."

What concerns me is not simple unfamiliarity with Scripture, but the formation of accusations based on that misapprehension. Perhaps you should be a bit more cautious about drawing conclusions from such a limited knowledge of Scripture.

[annalex]

To expand this to include the remainder of her natural life is more than idle speculation, it is adding to scripture.

Who is adding what? No one is saying that Mary remained a virgin because the scripture says so. I just got done telling you, and you agreed with me, that the scripture is silent on that matter.

While I agree that the scriptures are silent on many things, understood in the proper context, this does not imply any insufficiency with regard to the knowledge needed for the Christian life and godliness which is found solely in the revealed knowledge of the Lord according to Peter.

The scripture does not say that it alone is sufficient for Christian life. 2 Peter 1 does not say it, not 2 Timothy 3, nor any other scripture. You just make it up. I agree with St. Peter that the entire revelation of God given to Peter and other Apostles is sufficient, but that is not limited to the Scripture. I also agree with St. Paul that clergy will profit from studying the scripture, which should round off their education. None of this has anything to do with the matter of historical fact such as Mary's lifelong virginity.

does not justify an imbalanced, over-emphasis on her role

In whose view is it imbalanced? What authority do you have to decide for others where that balance is? In my opinion you have an under-emphasis. Now go on your knees and pray to Our Lady to correct it. What? I shouldn't order you around? Should you?

Jesus here [Luke 11:27-28] says, in contrast with the statement, there is a greater blessing to be had by keeping God’s Word

Right, but Mary is among those who are keeping the Word. In fact, while another saint might keep the word in the sense of obeying the gospel, Mary certainly did that, but she also kept the Word Himself, -- Jesus -- in the literal sense, under her heart. This passage does two things: It redirects the veneration of Mary from venerating her as a physiological mother of God to venerating her as an instrument of giving us the Word in the flesh. Secondly, it urges veneration of all saints for the work of obedience that they do.

Churches do sin when their members sin

Does not follow form what you said. We are all affected by the sins of the clergy, but sin is an individual thing, not collective.

[annalex]

this decision can be based on Biblical teaching such as the importance of frugality, avoiding the financial entanglement of debts, humility, serving others, etc.

Right. So we can apply biblical principles and factual knowledge with reason and reach solid conclusions. So why is it, again, that we cannot apply biblical principles and factual knowledge with reason and reach solid conclusions about Mary's immaculate conception, lifelong virginity, and assumption into heaven?

test of authority

St Paul also says that he who hasn't been sent cannot preach (Romans 10:15), and in fact Christ did send His Apostles (Mark 16:15) as himself (Luke 10:16, John 20:21). Further, St. Paul urges Titus and Timothy to consecrate others. Hence, valid apostolic succession is a part of that test. Naturally, obedience to the gospel is another part of the test, and prelates who fall to heresy are removed from office. Protestant ministers fail the first part to the one; they fail the second part if they preach unscriptural fantasies such as salvation by faith alone, authority of the Bible alone, or various Calvinist fallacies.

You would have to be more specific for me to know how you intend to apply this approach for me to either agree or disagree

This is a general logical proposition: if X is not sufficient to answer Y then the answer to Y is to be sought outside of X.

can examine the fruit of the lives of those making a claim to be led of the Holy Spirit.

Right. On this basis a teaching by a canonized saint whose life was martyred or was an example of holiness, and was examined thouroughly for obedience to the gospel has a greater weight than speculation of someone who made no sacrifices to teach, and often makes a comfortable living doing so.

Christ’s sinlessness was due to His intrinsic righteousness and holiness - His divine nature. It was not due to Mary

I never heard anyone suggest otherwise.

[annalex]

Yeah...

Mother of Christ: verses 2, 5 and 10.

Not a symbolic mother but a physiological mother: 2.

Assumed: verse 14 (given wings)

To a place which Satan cannot reach: 14

Other children by spiritual adoption: 17.

[annalex]

Interesting. My only comment to Ken Fortier’s assertion is that Mt. 10:28 does not contradict Mt 25: in Mt. 10 Jesus says that God has power to destroy a soul but He does not say that God will actually do so. In Mt. 25 Jesus says that both the reprobate and the elect will have their judgement for all eternity.