If the questions had anything to do with the discussion, I would answer them. But, the tragedy is this kind of diversionary tactic is used not to move the discussion forward, but to obfuscate. Stick to the point. The RCC has a mystical (not spiritual) bent toward the kind of visions and apparitions that give rise to these errors. Witness all of the claims about "stigmata" and "cheetos" and mary in the pancake. These don't arise from biblical Christians, but RCs. Even Santeria is simply the mystical elements of RC and Voodoo blended together. There is just so much similarity that the pagans practising one, add the other.
The Scriptures do not support crossing yourself, although that has become a "sign" RCs use if they ever encounter a dead person or something shocking. As if this act can protect them against something. Similarly, the rosary is a chanted concoction of repetitious words which Jesus specifically warned against, "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetiton as the Gentiles do, for they suppose they will be heard for their many words" Matt. 6:7
This is not anti-Catholic. It is anti-error, and the Catholic Church just happens to traffic in error. The same should be said for half of the so-called "Protestant" churches. Some "spirit-filled" groups are nothing more than wild emotional binges and have little to do with sound doctrine. Certainly, they are not teaching what the Apostles taught. But, in this particular area, this matter of "visions" of Mary and other "Saints", the guilt for this error lies with Rome. Our Lady of Fatima and falsehoods like this have set the tone for the average Catholic such that, instead of understanding the Scriptures and salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, they look to these nonsensical appartions as "connection". Rome should repent, if it can.
You wrote:
“If the questions had anything to do with the discussion, I would answer them.”
So, suddenly, points you make, or claims you make, have nothing to do with the discussion? Are you honestly claiming that what you say in threads has nothing to do with the discussion in the threads?
Again, PROVE what you claimed. here’s what you wrote:
“It is not about control; it is about teaching that such nonsense is true.”
Okay, show us all where the Vatican teaches that this woman is right and telling the truth. Can you do that for us?
“That begins at the top and the Catholic Church loves the top-down authority, so they get to wear it.”
Okay, show us where Pope Benedict XVI teaches that this woman is right and telling the truth. Can you do that for us?
Can you prove your claims or not?
You wrote out a launry list of statements that show more about the state of your knowledge than anything else:
“Witness all of the claims about “stigmata” and “cheetos” and mary in the pancake. These don’t arise from biblical Christians, but RCs.”
No, actually claims of the unusual come from all groups. What is interestind is actual stigmata is only found among historic Christians as far as I know. Some Catholics and Orthodox have had it, but no Protestants as far as I know. Protestants are cut off from such signs and blessings apparently.
“Even Santeria is simply the mystical elements of RC and Voodoo blended together. There is just so much similarity that the pagans practising one, add the other.”
And that must mean - according to your logic - that historic Judaism and paganism are similar since ancient Jews moved rather seamlessly (but completely illogically) between the two and even blended them together in Northern Israel. This is especially clear when you look at the blood sacrifices of Jews and pagans in ancient times.
“The Scriptures do not support crossing yourself, although that has become a “sign” RCs use if they ever encounter a dead person or something shocking.”
It is the prayer invoked when someone signs themselves that is important: “In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Calling upon the Trinity is an ancient practice when someone asks for God’s protection or guidance. And your point about “Scriptures do not support crossing yourself” is ridiculous. The Scriptures don’t explicitly support many things that many Protestants take for granted. That doesn’t make them unbiblical in themselves and it certainly doesn’t make them wrong. The cross is a stumbling block for some. The sign of the cross is a stumbling block for you.
“As if this act can protect them against something. Similarly, the rosary is a chanted concoction of repetitious words which Jesus specifically warned against, “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetiton as the Gentiles do, for they suppose they will be heard for their many words” Matt. 6:7”
You’re completely wrong. Jesus warned against meaningless repetition. The rosary is not meaningless repetition. Each decade of the rosary has a different meditation. Each terso a different theme. Jesus said the same prayer in the garden three times. That’s called repetition. It just wasn’t meaningless repetition. (Matthew 26:44)
“This is not anti-Catholic. It is anti-error... Rome should repent, if it can.”
No, it’s anti-Catholic and you are the one spreading error. You should repent of spreading the usual anti-Catholic misrepresentations.
LOL
I'm quite certain Christ does not consider Biblical quotations meaningless.
What if you don't think you will be heard for your many words and if the words and their repetitions are not meaningless to you? It is a matter of interpretation that this text disparages all repetition. It's the reader's choice. "Vain" could be seen as applying to ALL repetitions or as distinguishing one kind (the empty kind) from other kinds. I do not pray the rosary to be more heard than I am when I make a spontaneous or other prayer. So I do not meet the description Jesus provides in that line.
And your description of Catholics crossing themselves is comically unrealistic.