Immaculate Conception

[brinny]

That would have been my choice. I mean, who in their right mine would want to come back to this godless, sinful planet to be hung on a cross? Would y'all?

John 3:
12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;…


Mar 15:15
and Pilate, wishing to content the multitude, released to them Barabbas and delivered up Jesus --
having scourged Him -- that He might be crucified.

................................

.

you got THAT right!!!

 

[Root of Jesse]

I have already shown you the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. What is the difference between the definition and the doctrine?

No, you've shown the definition. The definition is what it is. The doctrine is what it means.

What is the TOC?

Table of Contents of the Bible.

I'm listening…



Not exactly. If it contradicts Scripture, it is right out. If it does not, we should look into it further before doing it. Taking the example of praying to Jesus, Scripture does not specifically forbid it. However, since we are generally exhorted in the Bible to pray to the Father, it is my belief that it is better to pray to the Father, and it is not recommended to pray to Jesus. Nevertheless, since the Bible also nowhere condemns praying to Jesus, we cannot say that it is wrong.

That's what I said when I said "If it doesn't contradict Scripture, then it's ok?" I disagree with your belief and so does my Church.

I disagree. Many Catholic doctrines contradict Scripture. Salvation from works contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9. Mary's perpetual virginity contradicts those passages that talk about Jesus' brothers (I don't have the reference right now, but will bring it if needed). Mary's immaculate conception contradicts Romans 3:10. I can get more, if necessary.

We don't believe salvation from works. Regarding Mary's perpetual virginity, where does it say, explicitly that Mary had other children? It does not. It says Jesus had other brothers and sisters, but that doesn't mean that they were his blood. Mary's immaculate conception does not contradict Scripture. First of all, she was a creature, and born, therefore she would be born with the stain of original sin, but we believe God preserved her from it, as he did Eve.

You need to get more. But this thread is about the Immaculate Conception, specifically, so I'd ask you to not derail the thread any further.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You mentioned it, but that doesn't make it so.


The Trinity is about as explicit in Scripture as any Christian doctrine is. In any case, it's believed only because it is taught by Scripture, not for any other reason. Even the Nicene Creed, which provides the most famous confirmation of the Trinitarian belief, credits the Scriptures for guiding the council's attendees, nothing else.

Which is that it's not explicit. IT's defined beautifully, but Scripture provides no meaning for it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Indeed. They do not say "The Trinity is not a doctrine you will find in the Bible. To know about it - we have to tell it to you because we just now made it up, because Peter's 27th successor just now told us about it"

The difference between a definition and a doctrine is like the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Does the Bible have a "table of contents" -- "Doctrine"??

There is no TOC in Scripture, but there is a doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no TOC in Scripture, but there is a doctrine.

yes there is doctrine in scripture.

Such as the Is 8:20 sola scriptura doctrine
Seen in Mark 7:6-13
Seen in Acts 17:11

Telling us to test all tradition and doctrine and see if it is supported or refuted by scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

yes there is doctrine in scripture.

Such as the Is 8:20 sola scriptura doctrine
Seen in Mark 7:6-13
Seen in Acts 17:11

Telling us to test all tradition and doctrine and see if it is supported or refuted by scripture.

Talk about eisegesis! It doesn't say anything about sola Scriptura in any of those...

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church.

So what?

As has been mentioned, there are many doctrines of the Christian faith that are no explicit in scripture, such as the Trinity and the contents of the New Testament.

And, as it has been mentioned (post #47), we are not talking about whether it is explicit in Scripture or not, but rather whether it really is biblical or not. Please stop using old arguments (post #45) which have been answered already (post #47).

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

No, you've shown the definition. The definition is what it is. The doctrine is what it means.

??? What?

Table of Contents of the Bible.

No, the Bible does not have a table of contents. But the early church recognised the books that were inspired by God and gathered them together.

That's what I said when I said "If it doesn't contradict Scripture, then it's ok?" I disagree with your belief and so does my Church.

Praying to Jesus does not contradict Scripture (although it is scripturally unrecommended). But Mary's immaculate conception does.

We don't believe salvation from works. Regarding Mary's perpetual virginity, where does it say, explicitly that Mary had other children? It does not. It says Jesus had other brothers and sisters, but that doesn't mean that they were his blood. Mary's immaculate conception does not contradict Scripture. First of all, she was a creature, and born, therefore she would be born with the stain of original sin, but we believe God preserved her from it, as he did Eve.

You need to get more. But this thread is about the Immaculate Conception, specifically, so I'd ask you to not derail the thread any further.

Yes, you believe in salvation by works; I believe in salvation by faith alone, and you believe in salvation by faith and works. Mary and Joseph clearly had at least another six children (Matthew 13:55-56).

And how does it even make sense to say that Mary was ‘preserved from her original sin’? Where do you find that in the Bible? What kind of original sin is it if she remains immaculate? How does that not contradict Psalms 51:5 and Romans 3:10? And what does Eve have to do with it? Was Eve also conceived with original sin and ‘preserved’ from it?

I can get more. Praying to saints contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5. Purgatory contradicts 1 John 2:2. Need I get even more?

 

[BobRyan]

Such as the Is 8:20 sola scriptura doctrine
Seen in Mark 7:6-13
Seen in Acts 17:11

Talk about eisegesis! It doesn't say anything about sola Scriptura in any of those...

Until you read the texts.

Is 8:20 "unto the Law and the Testimony - if they speak not according to the Word - there is no light them"

Act 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them (by the Apostle Paul) were SO"

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture.

In this case it is the "one true nation church started by God at Sinai" - - as all agree in Mark 7.

 

[Rick Otto]

yes there is doctrine in scripture.

Such as the Is 8:20 sola scriptura doctrine
Seen in Mark 7:6-13
Seen in Acts 17:11

Telling us to test all tradition and doctrine and see if it is supported or refuted by scripture.

Actually, the definition is a bit plastic, and needs to be used in an agreement usually, but not always determined by context.

I think in the general context we use it here, the first definition is my favorite, but that could just reflect my greater admiration of principles, than rules.

doc•trine (dŏkˈtrĭn)
►

• n.
  A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
• n.
  A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
• n.
  A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok so -- going with the first definition then.

"A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma."

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ addresses the point "teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of men".


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[Thursday]

Ok so -- going with the first definition then.

"A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma."

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ addresses the point "teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of men".


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus started a new tradition:

Luke 10:16
'Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

I would not lightly reject those sent by Jesus if I were you.

 

[Root of Jesse]

??? What?

You telling me you don't know the difference between what's in a dictionary and what's in an encyclopedia?

No, the Bible does not have a table of contents. But the early church recognised the books that were inspired by God and gathered them together.

Right. The Catholic Church Fathers.

Praying to Jesus does not contradict Scripture (although it is scripturally unrecommended). But Mary's immaculate conception does.

Prove it.

Yes, you believe in salvation by works; I believe in salvation by faith alone, and you believe in salvation by faith and works. Mary and Joseph clearly had at least another six children (Matthew 13:55-56).

You have no idea what I believe.
Matthew 27: 55 -- The Crucifixion

“Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”

This “Mary” is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matt 13:55.

Matthew 28: 1 -- The Resurrection

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb.”

This “other Mary” certainly corresponds to the mother of James and Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus.

It’s interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as “Jesus’ mother.” (See: Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase “His mother.”) It’s unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus’ mother are apparently two different women.
(A) Why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? (Wouldn’t that be easier than constantly “switching” between James and Jose?)

(B) Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?

(C) Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph?

(D) Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene?

(E) Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1?

(F) Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.)

(G) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary?!

And how does it even make sense to say that Mary was ‘preserved from her original sin’? Where do you find that in the Bible? What kind of original sin is it if she remains immaculate? How does that not contradict Psalms 51:5 and Romans 3:10? And what does Eve have to do with it? Was Eve also conceived with original sin and ‘preserved’ from it?

We don't hold to the Bible alone, we hold to Sacred Tradition as equally God's Word, and Tradition tells us. Eve was born without Original Sin, so God has the ability, and we know that God requires purity.

I can get more. Praying to saints contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5. Purgatory contradicts 1 John 2:2. Need I get even more?

We don't pray to saints, other than asking them to pray for us, but there's no contradiction. How does Purgatory contradict 1 John 2:2?
You haven't gotten any yet, so more than zero would be helpful. Again, though, you're derailing the thread.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Such as the Is 8:20 sola scriptura doctrine
Seen in Mark 7:6-13
Seen in Acts 17:11



Until you read the texts.

Is 8:20 "unto the Law and the Testimony - if they speak not according to the Word - there is no light them"

Act 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them (by the Apostle Paul) were SO"

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture.

In this case it is the "one true nation church started by God at Sinai" - - as all agree in Mark 7.

Oh, I see! Not. Sacred Tradition is as much God's Word as Scripture, Bob.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

You telling me you don't know the difference between what's in a dictionary and what's in an encyclopedia?

No. I am asking you to clarify exactly what you mean when you ask me to show you the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, and not its definition.

Right. The Catholic Church Fathers.

Wrong. The Christian Church fathers.

Prove it.

I have, in posts #2 and #109. It contradicts Psalms 51:5, Romans 3:10 and Romans 3:23.

You have no idea what I believe.

Well, you call yourself a Catholic. Catholics believe in salvation by faith and works. Are you implying that you reject Catholic doctrine?

Matthew 27: 55 -- The Crucifixion

“Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”

This “Mary” is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matt 13:55.

Matthew 28: 1 -- The Resurrection

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb.”

This “other Mary” certainly corresponds to the mother of James and Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus.

It’s interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as “Jesus’ mother.” (See: Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase “His mother.”) It’s unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus’ mother are apparently two different women.
(A) Why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? (Wouldn’t that be easier than constantly “switching” between James and Jose?)

(B) Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?

(C) Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph?

(D) Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene?

(E) Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1?

(F) Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.)

(G) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary?!

The problem is that this Mary is also identified as the mother of Jesus (Matthew 13:53-56).

We don't hold to the Bible alone, we hold to Sacred Tradition as equally God's Word, and Tradition tells us.

I know. That is your key problem. If your tradition contradicts the Bible, you ignore the Bible and follow tradition.

Eve was born without Original Sin, so God has the ability, and we know that God requires purity.

But what does Eve have to do with Mary?

We don't pray to saints, other than asking them to pray for us, but there's no contradiction.

Yes, there is, because you use them as mediators.

How does Purgatory contradict 1 John 2:2?

Because you believe that Purgatory is ‘a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions’. The idea that we must still pay the penalty for our transgressions contradicts 1 John 2:2.

You haven't gotten any yet, so more than zero would be helpful. Again, though, you're derailing the thread.

Even more? OK, one more now. The necessity of confessing your sins to a priest contradicts 1 John 1:9.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Ok so -- going with the first definition then.

"A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma."

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ addresses the point "teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of men".


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

What doctrine was he talking about?

 

[BobRyan]

Ok so -- going with the first definition then.

"A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma."

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ addresses the point "teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of men".

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

What doctrine was he talking about?

First question - do you agree with Christ's statements in Mark 7 -- or oppose them?

Secondly -- Is it your claim that we cannot read the English text as it has been translated for us - or that the text itself is so shrouded in mystery that it would take advanced degrees in English to see what has been written there?

Because as it is now - I can see a lot of references there to the 'commandments of men' and even 'teaching for doctrine the commandments of men'

 

[Root of Jesse]

No. I am asking you to clarify exactly what you mean when you ask me to show you the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, and not its definition.

Here's the doctrine:
249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81

250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people's sense of the faith.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . .92

Wrong. The Christian Church fathers.

There was only one Church-the Catholic Church.

I have, in posts #2 and #109. It contradicts Psalms 51:5, Romans 3:10 and Romans 3:23.



Well, you call yourself a Catholic. Catholics believe in salvation by faith and works. Are you implying that you reject Catholic doctrine?

I am implying that you don't have any idea what the Catholic Church teaches, because Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith and works.

The problem is that this Mary is also identified as the mother of Jesus (Matthew 13:53-56).

Wrong.

I know. That is your key problem. If your tradition contradicts the Bible, you ignore the Bible and follow tradition.

Strike 2. We never ignore the Bible.

But what does Eve have to do with Mary?

God's creation. Mary is called the New Eve, where Eve disobeyed God and sinned, Mary obeyed God and did not.

Yes, there is, because you use them as mediators.

Why do you have a problem with intercessory prayer? Do you ever ask someone to pray for you?

Because you believe that Purgatory is ‘a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions’. The idea that we must still pay the penalty for our transgressions contradicts 1 John 2:2.

Actually, it doesn't contradict at all. Being forgiven is different from paying for our transgressions.

Even more? OK, one more now. The necessity of confessing your sins to a priest contradicts 1 John 1:9.

No, it doesn't. Jesus told his apostles that "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, who's sins you retain are retained." That means people had to tell them about their sins, in order to be forgiven.

 

[Albion]

We never ignore the Bible.

"You" do create doctrines that are not based upon it or supported by it, though. That would seem to justify saying that the Bible is ignored. Just not all the time. I'd agree to that.

Mary is called the New Eve, where Eve disobeyed God and sinned, Mary obeyed God and did not.

That doesn't make Mary immaculate. Eve sinned, you know.

Why do you have a problem with intercessory prayer? Do you ever ask someone to pray for you?

Not the dead, no. Not spirits, no. And the reason is that it's not Biblical.

Actually, it doesn't contradict at all. Being forgiven is different from paying for our transgressions.

Actually, it does. Otherwise, being forgiven one's sins would have no meaning.

No, it doesn't. Jesus told his apostles that "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, who's sins you retain are retained." That means people had to tell them about their sins, in order to be forgiven.

No, it doesn't. Nothing in that makes them the exclusive "forgiverers." And don't forget that sacramental confession as you're advocating it is not Apostolic. It came later in church history.