Are you actually Protestant?

[mikepec]

I’m not talking about Sola scripture. You claimed your points were biblical that I challenged and to provide verses that said your points were mentioned with the good news. You have yet to prove they are biblical in origin.

Apart from the references I gave you mean ….? Which makes them biblical. But far more than that it is how early church understood them, at a time faith was “handed down” . The word paradosis, translated as tradition in modern colloquial usage has wrong connotations.. . The Bible was way in the future when iraneus describes tradition and the succession And primacy of rome.

Start with the first “ how can they preach if not sent” . It is there in black and white as are numerous instances of sending Disciples to,teach. A pastor who cannot trace his authority back to the early church in succession - almost all of the reformation Church - is not qualified to preach .

Go back to basics.

You need to accept Jesus did not say “write this” or “ read this” , he appinted disciples ( who appointed others) and said “do this “ and “ teach this “. Few could read and write,and books were burned by romans. So what matters is what they taught who were sent to preach.

The Bible was not written as an easy read manual of faith. it isn’t. It is “ hard sayings” to quote Peter.

Bind and loose is authoritative judgement on issues of ( Gods) law . Which is resolving disputes ,and why councils permit and forbid
it’s what theydo. councils - including the first in acts - were convened to consider and rule on disputes on matters of faith.
It is why the church is the foundation of truth.

You cannot read the Bible in isolation and hope to understand it, and you imply sola scriptura by asking for scriptural reference, which I gave.

Anyway. I tire of repeating the same issues. I am called to explain how the the faith was handed down how the church functioned , not to make you believe it.
Believe what you will.

The only ones I have no time for are those who wilfully misinterpret claiming others have “ goddesses” which is insulting vexatious, and offensive to Jesus let alone others.

 

[mikepec]

Let's go through the terms used. As a non-Catholic, I'll give you my personal view on the following phrases:

"saving office":
I wish that term would be better explained in the quote. Do they mean her "intercessions" or do they mean something beyond that? I have no problem with her interceding for us.

"Advocate":
Is this talking about her intercessions? This needs to be clearly defined by Catholics.

"Helper":
Helper in what sense?

"Benefactress":
We certainly can benefit from another's intercessions, especially from one who was and is close to Jesus.

"Mediatrix":
Jesus is the only Mediator between us and God the Father. She cannot be a Mediator between us and God the Father but that doesn't exclude her from being a Mediator between us and Jesus.

Conclusion: phrases/terms are being used on all sides without explicit and agreed upon definitions.

A useful and prescient post.

Definitions are at the heart of many unnecessary disagreements.
much of the disputes over soteriology are unnecessary because of differences in the nature and scope of how groups use words like “ faith” and “ saved”. There is more agreement than many assume.

 

[Brakelite]

Without being specific to your quotes, I would earn you and everyone reading that even the notorious fact checkers on social media use true data in order to deceive. This was particularly apparent over the last 3 years, even on main media outlets. So using biblical texts in order to establish a doctrine or idea can also be used by some as deception. Using a Bible text to support any doctrine or idea does not guarantee that doctrine is truth. In fact even Catholics themselves berate protestants for having so many differences and all using the Bible as evidence for 'truth'. I actually get it. But it doesn't guarantee your ideas are truth either. There's more to Bible study than simple reading and writing.