“That was for you.”
Nope. If you were waxing poetic about Luther or sola scriptura or sola fide and other Protestant inventions it certainly wasn’t meant for me even if it was posted to me.
“Altogether it was of more import than the defensiveness displayed in the “Luther chatted up the devil” type of misrepresentation of things which you engaged in”
There was no defensiveness on my part but, of course, you’re free to imagine anything you wish. And from your posts I would think you imagine quite a bit.
“— done after accusing Elsie of “making things up” concerning a list of evil popes having taken their orders from the devil.”
Accusing? That’s the word you would use? You make it sound like Elsie actually has proof that the Devil gave orders to popes yet it has already been shown that Elsie can’t post any such thing and, of course, none in fact exists.
“The brief notes of what those popes were noted for provide grounds for extrapolating they were much in the thrall of Satan.”
Oh, I’m sure they were sinners. Aren’t you and I also sinners? But sinners are enthralled to sin more than to the tempter himself and that offers no proof of having received orders from the Devil. Temptation, and giving in to it, are one thing; a claim about people receiving orders from the Devil is another - and one that clearly will remain unsubstantiated like so many other anti-Catholic fantasies.
That was not the middling portion I mentioned which was intended for you...
As for discussion concerning how the five solas could be seen to relate to even the one scripture passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews, chptr 12;
2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.is less "waxing poetic" than what Ireneus engaged in, in regards to himself speaking of Mary as "new Eve" who allegedly "loosened the knot" of Eve's disobedience, when Eve herself though complicit was not charged by God with that crime, while the man Adam himself directly was.
In the many ways in which obeying the tempter, those popes showed by the testimony of their own actions who it was they were taking orders from, there needn't be blow-by-blow recounting of any conversations they may have had, whether those be unwittingly engaged in on those pope's side of the 'conversation' or not, to indicate that your accusation that Elsie was just making things up be false.
While the hearsay evidence which you presented as alleged "proof" Luther should be despised for conversing with the devil, coming as that does from polemical foe of Luther's should be accepted instead?
Here again on basis of your own somewhat artificially imposed technicalities, which technicalities upon examination can be excluded, points towards the difference between judicial and common law, which is why I had included some mention of that juxtaposition and how that related to how Catholic popes and lesser prelates went about their own processes of judgement, the flaws inherent with those methodologies, and how you do seem to echo that fasci-bundle approach, showing again distant echo of Roman Empire administrative practice was to large extent taken up by the Church of Rome as model and remains within "the mind of the church" (if you do share that "mind") with yourself posing as to be shifting to a common law approach only when the initial attempts of intimidation fail.
Take the hearsay evidence and go pound sand with that.
Meanwhile, I will remember to not listen to what "they" say, but pay attention to what they do.
You are correct.
It's entirely different than the 'proof' shown to PROVE that...
"Luther said he chatted with the Devil. "
Amazing that you KNOW everything!