Questions about Osas for Protestants II

I had a response to my article Questions about OSAS for Protestants. 

Basically, it was just a link to my old nemesis' blog, Answering Catholic Claims.  The author of the article doesn't identify himself, but I'm assuming its Russell, the person who owns that blog.  And the link he provided is simply his testimony as to why he left the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I've got a few of my own testimonies recorded on this blog.  My testimonies explain why I left the Catholic Church and then, why I returned.  If you're interested, you'll find them here:

Analysis of a Conversion 

I think Russell and I track very closely as far as our shared experience of being cradle Catholics.  We diverge in the following facts.  

1.  I became an atheist.  He became a Protestant.

2.  I returned to the Catholic Church.  He did not.

In addition, I have a good opinion of Russell.  I think he speaks honestly and in good faith.

So, what I'd like to do is go through his testimony and simply point out where we differ and my reasons why I am of a different opinion.  So, let's go through it.

So, Russell says:

Today’s article will be different. It will be about my personal experience with the Catholic Church and its teachings. Anyone who has read this blog knows that I am not a Catholic and that I disagree strongly with the Catholic Church on many issues, although there are some things they teach with which we can agree. For the record, I did not leave the Catholic Church for personal reasons. I was not berated by a bishop. I was not molested by a priest. I did not leave the Catholic Church because I wanted to shack up and live guilt-free with my girlfriend, or because I found its views on contraception too strict. And it wasn’t because Catholics are mean people. In fact, I live in an area with a high concentration of Catholics and many of them are great people and wonderful neighbors.

No, I left the Catholic Church for doctrinal reasons. I strongly disagree with many of its teachings which I believe are not biblical.

Of course, I disagree.  I believe that the Catholic Church is the author of the New Testament and the Institution which gathered all the existing religious writings of the early Church and put them together in one volume which we know today as the Bible.  Furthermore, I believe that the New Testament was written on the basis of Catholic Doctrine and that the Old Testament texts which are included in the Bible were selected on the basis of their agreement with Catholic Doctrine.

My Childhood

I was raised on a farm and was one of six siblings and, for the most part, had a great childhood. We were raised Catholic, although we were not devout. We very seldom went to church except for weddings and funerals. My dad didn’t see attending church as a necessity, although he certainly taught us right from wrong. My mom was the one who taught us our prayers and helped us through First Communion, Confirmation, etc.

Even though I was hardly ever in church in my younger years, I was somewhat tender toward the things of God. I really did want to go to church, but just didn’t get much opportunity to do so as a child.

I vividly remember one day speaking with my oldest brother about how old some people get. He said, “Yeah, some people grew to be 500 years old and even older. It’s in the Bible.” I thought, “Wow, that’s amazing! But it must be true if it’s in the Bible.” Now, I didn’t think this because we were Sola Scriptura (“Bible only”) believers. In fact, we didn’t even have a Bible at home (that I was aware of) and I knew almost nothing about the Bible, but somewhere down the line, I became aware that it was God’s Word and it needed to be taken seriously. From that moment, I had a greater respect for the Bible and I will ever be grateful to my brother for sharing that information with me that day.

Russell and I were raised miles apart and in very different cultures.  I am a first generation American of Mexican descent, born and raised in America on the Mexican border.  Yet, I also vividly remember discussions with my Catholic friends on the fact that the Bible contained no errors.  If the Bible said it, it was true.  This is Catholic Teaching.

The Skunk

As the years went by, I started attending catechism at my small-town elementary school. Almost everyone in that school was Catholic and I remember how most of the students knew a lot more about their catechism than I did, since they attended church every week.

Anyway, as a side note, there was kind of a funny thing that happened one day. As I said, it was a small school in a small town and we would sometimes walk from the school to the Catholic Church a few blocks away to attend catechism there. On one of these trips, a group of us were walking back to the school after catechism class and we found a dead skunk in the middle of the street. As we surrounded it, one of my good friends, Greg, somehow managed to toss it on me. I don’t remember how it happened, but it certainly did and the evidence was there! When we got back to school a few minutes later, the teacher immediately smelled it and scolded Greg for his mischievous deed. We still laugh about it today.

I don't have a skunk story to tell.  I have a bunch of others, but, you kind of had to be there to truly understand it.  So, I'll just pass on this.

Trouble on the rise…

As a kid, I very seldom got in trouble. I was basically a good person in everyone’s eyes, a “goody-two-shoes,” if you will. But the sinful nature of Adam in me prevailed and I grew tired of this image. I remember walking down my gravel road one day as I decided I was going to do something bad. I wasn’t even sure what I was going to do yet, but I really wanted to break out of this “good guy” mold. At that moment, all I can describe is that something definitely changed. Something seemed to “click” in my mind. My heart was set to do evil (Ecclesiastes 8:11).

Because of this, a series of personal events occurred and things quickly went south. It was almost as though God was saying to me, “Oh, so you want to be a tough guy, huh? You want to go against the good I’ve given to you all your life? Ok, then I’ll turn up the heat!” God loves us but He will discipline us for our own good (Job 5:17; Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; Revelation 3:19). And the “spanking” began. This was the start of the worst period in my entire life. Things began to happen that caused depression, bitterness and hatred to set in. I had become a miserable, lustful, foul-mouthed and angry young man and I found out that when God decides to spank a wayward child, you’ll know you’ve been spanked! I don’t know what would’ve happened if God had extended this period of misery, but only by His grace did I survive it.

Ditto.  I was a nice kid.  But I was also a pain in the butt.  But, when I started misbehaving, I didn't get the spankings from God that Russell describes.  In fact, I remember liking the results of my misadventures, at first.

In desperation one day, I suddenly remembered I had a book written by a preacher collecting dust on my bookshelf. I opened it and read for the first time about God’s plan for His people. It was as though the author was speaking directly to me. I began to cry like a baby in a much-needed emotional release. At this time, God wonderfully began to change my heart and my whole situation.

If you read my conversion story, you'll see that I didn't get to this point until my wife conceived our first child.  I was 30 years old by then.

Something Lacking

A short time later, my girlfriend and I got married and since we were both Catholic, we were attending a local Catholic church. One day at work, I met a guy named Elliot, who shared the gospel with me. He told me things from the Bible that I had never heard in the Catholic Church. He also encouraged me to read the Bible for myself. So, I bought one and began reading it. This was an eye-opening experience.

My wife and I were still going to the Catholic Church, but we both felt like it was similar to going to a restaurant with a large buffet, yet only taking a tiny taste and leaving unsatisfied. We enjoyed the very short “homily” (sermon), but everything seemed to be swallowed up in rituals. As time went on, we discovered that many things the Catholic Church taught were not found in Scripture and that some things actually went against what the Bible teaches. Once again, we did not leave the Catholic Church for personal reasons, but because of what it teaches. If you are wondering about which teachings I object to, there are many articles on this blog which will give details on different topics. One of the most important topics with which we disagreed with Catholics was justification, i.e., how a person is saved, and the differences here are too important to ignore.

So, here's a big diversion in our experience.  The Bible had a great deal to do with my leaving the Catholic Church.  I thought the Bible was ridiculous.  And the Bible had nothing to do with my returning to the Catholic Church.  In fact, at the time that I returned to the Catholic Church, I was still unaware of the relationship of the Bible to Catholic Teaching.

Conclusion

I want everyone to know that this blog was not produced out of bitterness or to personally attack Catholics.

Well thanks.  And I want everyone to know that I also have no bitterness towards Protestants.  Many Protestants are good friends of mine.

Throughout the blog, I am just attempting to share what God has shown me.

I'm doing the same thing.  I'm sharing what God has shown me.  I don't think God is giving contradicting messages.  So, one of us is wrong.

Again, I have many great Catholic friends (and family) and this blog is not meant to disparage them. Rather, I hope that this article arouses their interest and lets everyone know where I am coming from.

Ditto.  I have many Protestant friends and family.  I am not disparaging them.  But I hope someone will understand where I am coming from.

Having said that, if I am wrong about the content of all these articles, you may have nothing to lose… but if I am right, there are serious spiritual consequences for those Catholics who choose to continue to embrace the teachings of Rome.

Same here.  If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose.  But, if I'm right, then there are serious spiritual consequences for the Protestants who choose to continue to reject the Catholic Church.

There's a difference though.  The Catholic Church teaches that a righteous person can be saved whether he is Catholic or not.  So, according to Catholic Teaching, a righteous Protestant will be saved.  Righteousness is achieved by keeping the Commandments.

Lastly, I want to urge everyone – Catholics, Protestants and otherwise – to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), including the things I say, with Scripture, since it is the only God-breathed revelation for mankind today (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Certainly, I agree.  Please test all things.  I'd urge you to start with Russell's interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16-17.  It does not say that Scripture is the only thing that is God breathed.  It merely says that Scripture is God breathed.  In other passages, men are also God breathed.  See, for example,

John 20:22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

Since Jesus was breathing on the Apostles, the Foundation of the Church, we know that the Church is also, God-breathed.

It also does not say that one should pick up the Scriptures and interpret them apart from the Church.  It describes teacher, teaching, preaching and admonishing a student.  Something the Bible, a simple book, can't do.  Here's what it says:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Sanctify them through Thy truth. Thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

It also says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth:

1 Timothy 3:15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

And that His Word is brought down to us in oral Teaching:

2 Thess 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits[a] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.  15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[b] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)

Yes, but God assigned the Church to Teach us all that He commanded.  And all that He commanded has to be true.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

So, that's where Russell and I differ.  Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.  That's why I follow the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church put the Bible together and wrote the New Testament.  That's why I believe everything in the Bible.  Protestant teaching contradicts the Bible. 

What Scripture does not say

There’s an interesting discussion going on in the comments to the Paradigm article. Thanks to all who are participating there. The idea that is surfacing is that Protestants make up doctrine according to what they claim, “Scripture does not say”. 
Read More...

Can someone who follows the Bible alone be a Catholic?

RB:If a person refused to follow the creed and teachings of Roman Catholicism, and followed only the Bible, would that person be allowed to become a member of the Roman Catholic denomination?

OG:  The answer should be "No", but very possibly they would slip through the cracks and be allowed in anyway. Why would this person want to be a Catholic anyway?

I agree.  Anyone who refused to follow the creeds and the teachings of the Catholic Church would not be following the Bible. Therefore that person could not be a Catholic.  The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Bible alone.

In order to be a Catholic one must follow Scripture and Tradition according to the Teaching of the Church. This is what is taught in Scripture. The doctrine known as the Bible alone contradicts the Bible.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁵ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Ephesians 3:10

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁰ To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Hebrews 13:7

King James Version (KJV)
⁷ Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

You can't separate the Church and the Word of God contained in Tradition. Scripture is part of Tradition. Jesus Christ did not write any Scripture. He deposited His Teachings with the Church. The Church passes down His Teachings in Tradition and Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The true understanding of Scripture is taught by the Catholic Church

Buctus:

OK.... you live by other mans interpretations even though you clearly wrote....

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Got it. sigh

I live by the true understanding of Scripture taught by the Catholic Church:

Ephesians 3:10

King James Version (KJV)

¹⁰ To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

An understanding which does not deny Tradition:

2 Thessalonians 2:15

King James Version (KJV)

¹⁵ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

As do the Protestants in their false teaching of Scripture alone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Jews in Thessalonica also read the Scriptures but rejected the Teachings of the Church

Lutero:
That statement by deM, is the most hilarious thing I have read all day. And such a lie. LOL

And yet, you can't refute it. Here it is again:

Acts 17

King James Version (KJV)
17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
² And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
³ Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
⁴ And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
⁵ But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
⁶ And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
⁷ Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
⁸ And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
⁹ And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
¹¹ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Yea, the Jews in Thessalonica also read the Scriptures but rejected the Teachings of the Church concerning Jesus Christ. Whereas, the Bereans read the Scriptures and ACCEPTED THE Teachings of the Church regarding Jesus Christ.

Thessalonians, by Scripture alone, rejected Jesus Christ.
Bereans, by the Teaching of the Church and Scripture, accepted Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Whereas you deny the value of all except Scripture.

Lutero:

Are you now SS? (i.e. Sola Scripturist)

I don't deny the value of Tradition:
2 Thessalonians 2:15

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁵ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Or the value of the Church:
Ephesians 3:10

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁰ To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Or the authority of the Priests:
Hebrews 13:17

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁷ Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

I uphold the authority of Tradition, Scripture and the Church. Whereas you deny the value of all except Scripture. A lie which is taught by the Protestants and can be found nowhere in the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

P.S.  By the way, HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!

May God grant you a blessed and happy New Year.

Whereas the Bereans accepted the Teaching of the Apostles

Catholicguy: 

who said Jesus lied? or his word lied? I am saying the bereans, who are always pointed to as evidence for the false doctrine of sola scriptura, where is no way sola scriptura. they needed paul and the church to guide them. they accepted the preaching of Paul as opposed to those jews in thessonia who clung only to their intepretation of scripture and refused to agree with paul and the church.

Calvin: 

Beareans checked teachings against scripture.

So did the Thessalonicans.

The Catholic Church behaves precisely as did the Bereans. Catholics are the modern Bereans. We accept Tradition and Scripture according to the Teaching of the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Luther: 

Yep according to the teachings of the church....Just not Jesus Christ.

According to the Teachings of Jesus Christ through His Church.  

Acts 17

King James Version (KJV)
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
² And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
³ Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
⁴ And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
⁵ But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
⁶ And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
⁷ Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
⁸ And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
⁹ And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
¹¹ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Note that the Apostles brought the Teaching of Jesus Christ through the Church, which they represent.  They also reasoned with the Thessalonicans, out of the Scriptures.  Just as they did thigh the Bereans.  But the Thessalonican Jews rejected the Teaching of the Apostles.  Not the Scriptures.

Whereas the Bereans accepted the Teaching of the Apostles, that is to say, the Teaching of the Church AND the Scriptures.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Catholics are the modern Bereans.

Calvin:
Beareans checked teachings against scripture.

So did the Thessalonicans.

RCC would be wise to do so.

The Catholic Church behaves precisely as did the Bereans. Catholics are the modern Bereans. We accept Tradition and Scripture according to the Teaching of the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

They accepted the Teaching of the Church after they searched the Scriptures

Catolico: 

who said Jesus lied? or his word lied? I am saying the bereans, who are always pointed to as evidence for the false doctrine of sola scriptura, where is no way sola scriptura. they needed paul and the church to guide them.

Lutero: 

No, they tested everything Paul said agasint the Scriptures....

So did the Thessalonicans. The difference between the Thessalonicans and the Bereans is that the Bereans accepted the Teaching of the Church. The Thessalonicans rejected the Teaching of the Church.

Catolico:
they accepted the preaching of Paul

Calvin: 

Not until they searched the Scriptures to see if those things were so… 

Exactly! They accepted the Teaching of the Church after they searched the Scriptures. They accepted Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, not Scripture alone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Berean episode confirms the Teaching of the Church

Protestor: 

Plus he (De Maria) has forgotten the Bereans. They went directly to Scripture to see if they were being told the truth by Paul and Silas (what RCCers would call representatives of the church). And they were commended for doing so. They didn't just blindly accept what they were told.

Catolico: 

this claim about the bereans is tired and old. the thesselicans were the sola scriptura people. the listen to paul, studied the scriptures, didnt agree and tried to kill them.
the berenas listened to paul studied the scriptures and agreed with Paul. the bereans accepted preaching from Paul. the thessies didnt. they both searched the scriptures and they came to different conclusions about paul.
this on going clinging to the bereans as sola scriptura advocates is a joke. the accepted the preaching of Paul, without the NT and only the OT. they themselves needed paul to explain and teach them.

Protestor: 

So scripture is lying about the bereans? God lies in His word?
No one said a thing about sola scriptura. Please read the thread and keep up.

Catolico: 

who said Jesus lied? or his word lied? I am saying the bereans, who are always pointed to as evidence for the false doctrine of sola scriptura, where is no way sola scriptura. they needed paul and the church to guide them. they accepted the preaching of Paul as opposed to those jews in thessonia who clung only to their intepretation of scripture and refused to agree with paul and the church.

Protestor: 

Sola scriptura, again, is not in the OP.

Then what was Discerner talking about when he brought up the Bereans? Protestants often use that verse in the mistaken belief that it supports Sola Scriptura when in fact, it confirms Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Catholic Church continues to do what St. Philip did

Protestor: 

The Eunuch only had the prophecy of Isaiah in his hands which words could not be understood without a knowledge of what had happened at Calvary.

That is the point. The Church teaches the ignorant about what happened at Calvary. That is illustrated in this text and continues to be repeated throughout the world to this day. The Catholic Church instructs the world about what happened at Calvary.

(See Acts 8:29 35).

This just repeats the same example I gave. That doesn't at all confirm your claim that is no longer necessary to teach people the meaning of Scripture.
Acts 8:29-35

King James Version (KJV)
²⁹ Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
³⁰ And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
³¹ And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
³² The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
³³ In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
³⁴ And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
³⁵ Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Protestor: 

Of course, in this formative period when the gospel message had not been fully revealed and the story of the cross had not been told, one would have to be guided to the fulfillment of this dark prophecy to know who it was that "was led like a sheep to slaughter; and just as a lamb dumb before its shearer; so did he not open his mouth." However, now that we have the inspired record of the exact and literal fulfillment of this prophecy, we do not need interpretation to tell us what this means and to explain what the gospel requires of us.

The Catholic Church continues to do what Philip did here. To this day, the Catholic Church teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

It is conspicuous by its absence that you posted nothing else about your claims against the Church Fathers.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Since Martin Luther violated Scripture's injunction to obey the Church, I find it very silly indeed.

Hi Alan,

Since you have experience on both sides, then you possibly have considered the following questions already.  They describe, in my opinion, a vast difference in the way we approach the Faith (i.e. Religion) of Christ.

1.  Did Christ write any Scripture?  Or did He rather, establish a Church, impart His Traditions upon that Church and command that Church to teach them to the world (Matt 28:19-20)?

I think you will admit that Jesus did not write any Scripture but in fact built an authoritative hierarchy and taught them His Traditions which He commanded be passed down to every generation.  Anyway, if you don't admit this to be true, this is what we believe and can prove from Scripture and history.

2.  Did the Church write the New Testament and put the Old Testament together with the New in the Bible?

Again, I think you have to admit this is true.  But even if you don't, this is what we believe and can prove from Scripture and history.

The reason I mention this is because these are important foundations from which we logically proceed.

Now, you proceed from an assumption of Scripture alone.  And
you said,

There is no evidence of her sinlessness,

Is there evidence of her sinfulness?  Is there any evidence at all, in Scripture, that Mary committed any sin?  Please provide chapter and verse so that we may discuss it.

 her perpetual virginity,

Please provide the verses which you think deny her perpetual virginity. Chapter and verse.

 her assumption into Heaven

We see in Scripture (Rev 12:1) where a Woman who gave birth to the Messiah is found bodily in heaven.  Since Mary is the mother of the Messiah, Jesus, we conclude that the Woman depicted in Rev 12 is symbolically teaches that Mary the mother of Jesus Christ is in heaven.

Do you have any proof, from Scripture, to the contrary?

or her majesty there as Queen of Heaven.

Following the same logic as above, we see Mary symbolically crowned with 12 stars in heaven.  Therefore, we conclude that God is telling that Mary is crowned the Queen of Heaven.

Do you have any evidence, from Scripture, to the contrary?

However, I believe the Protestants have it wrong by not talking about her at all. They’ve thrown the baby’s mother out with the bath water, so to speak. She is a major component in the life of Jesus, she is most certainly blessed among women, a tower of faith, grace and motherhood and should be talked about much more than she is – but she is not deity

Who said she was?

and therefore should not be prayed to 

To pray is to request.  That is the ancient meaning of the term.  Have you ever heard a phrase such as, "I pray thee, pass the salt."  That is a request for the salt.  We still use prayer to the saints in the same sense.

and worshiped like she is.

We do not worship Mary as God.  Although, worship is also not adoration when understood in the ancient sense.  Let me give you an example:
Joshua 5:14  KJV
And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, <b>and did worship,</b> and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?

Did Joshua here hold the angel as God?  No.  He simply venerated the angel and humbled himself before the Messenger of God.

In the same way, we do not adore Mary nor hold her as a deity.  But we do humble ourselves before her and venerate her because she is the Mother of God.  And we also praise her in imitation of God.  God sent His messenger with the following message, "Hail Full of Grace....blessed art thou amongst women...."  That is praise.  But even that pales by the fact that God selected her to be the mother of His son.

 Jesus is the mediator between God and man, as Deacon Harold pointed out, but the role of intercessor belongs not to Mary or the saints but to the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who intercedes and points to Jesus. 

Should we then, disobey the Scriptures?
1 Timothy 2:1
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

According to Revelation 19:10, we are to worship God only. RCs do a little more than just pray to Mary. We are not to fall down before angels, 

See reference to Joshua above.

saints or even the mother of Jesus, unique and blessed though she is. What would you think if you saw a Protestant praying to Martin Luther? It seems silly to me.

Since Martin Luther violated Scripture's injunction to obey the Church (Matt 18:17) and to submit to and obey the rulers of the Church (Heb 13:17), I find it very silly indeed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

did Luther and Calvin abrogate that passage?

Luther:
And I can give you an example of what the word of God says without any worry about the confusion amongst RC popes who promulgate one thing and then later on having another RC pope recind it.
Here is God's way:The original apostles received all the truth we need to guide us to eternal life, and they wrote this down in the Scriptures.Check it out for yourself rell in the following verses, it has all the truth our Lord tells us that we need to follow.
John 16:13;2 Pet. 1:3;Acts 20:20,27;Matt. 28:20;I Cor. 14:37;2 Tim. 3:16,17).

We follow all of those. Do you follow this one?
Hebrews 13:17

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁷ Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Or did Luther and Calvin abrogate that passage?

How about this one?

Romans 2:13

King James Version (KJV)
¹³ (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

And this one:
2 Thessalonians 2:15

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁵ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

And this one:
John 14:21-23

King James Version (KJV)
²¹ He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
²² Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
²³ Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Sincerely,

De Maria

99% of which were Bishops of the Church

Calvin: 

Each one of these early church fathers spoke for scriptures only, not tradition. I will be happy to cite their quotes if a poster would like, it takes up much space to put all of these quotes now.

I'll take you up on the challenge. Lets go one Church Father at a time if you don't mind. That too much space stuff is just an excuse because you know that the Church Fathers had much to say about Tradition. And none of them ever said anything about Scirpture ALONE. Yes, they spoke about Scripture, but they never denied Tradition.

I actually edited the OP to add some.

Thanks. I'll debunk those below.

Therefore scriptures only is not a new invention 

Yes, it is a new invention. Protestants invented it. 

Calvin: 

I have heard many catholic posters here make this claim:
"Sola Scriptura is an invention of 16th century Protestants."

That is correct, I'm one of them.

I even have read this:
"The irony is that the principle by which the Reformers sought to return to the purity of the early Church was itself unknown to the early Church. The idea of sola Scriptura was an invention of the sixteenth century. No Father or council of the early Church ever asserted that the Scriptures, in and of themselves, with-out any reference to the Church, are the all-sufficient rule of faith. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura was an invention of the Reformation itself. ... This means that from the Day of Pentecost to October 31, 1517-a span of approximately 1488 years-the kind of theology which Protestantism exalts as being "authentic" could not have existed. In other words, the early Church, to which the Reformers theoretically wanted to return, had a theology quite different from that of the Reformers." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 91)

So this to me is saying Protestants invented it.

Absolutely!

However upon further reading I have seen this:

.... the earliest apostolic Fathers clearly taught Sola Scriptura.

That's wrong.

The Bible and Apostolic Fathers taught it.

Here, let me show you what the Bible teaches:

1 Timothy 3:15

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁵ But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Hebrews 13:17

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁷ Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁵ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Please, now its your turn, show me where Scripture says to believe Scripture alone.

Calvin

Then between 200 AD and 1500 AD, there was a gradual move towards the adoption of human creeds and traditions. By the time Luther came along, the Roman Catholic church had become so tradition bound, that the church barely resembled the one you can read about in the Bible. Luther simply restored the concept found in the Bible that scripture overthrows all traditions. For Catholic and Orthodox defenders to say sola Scriptura was invented in the 16th century, is as historically dishonest as it is wishful thinking.

Ok. Lets go one at a time. Here's what these Church Fathers said about Tradition.

180 AD: Irenaeus

Irenaeus

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid.4:33 [A.D. 189]).

180 AD: Clement of Alexandria

Here St. Clement speaks of the preeminence of St. Peter. Protestants say that is a tradition.

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

200 AD: Tertullian

Tertullian

For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription Against Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]).

200 AD: Hippolytus

Here, Hyppolytus explains the priesthood, which Protestants say is a tradition not in Scripture. Where did he get it from?

Hippolytus

When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: He is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop's command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . . On a presbyter [priest], however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains. (Apostolic Tradition 9 [ca. A.D. 215]).

250 AD: Cyprian

Here, St. Cyprian speaks of the Church as immaculate and calls the Sacraments divine. Where did he get that?

Cyprian

The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church6 [A.D. 251]).

325 AD: Athanasius

Athanasius

Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, "It seemed good as follows," for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, "It seemed good" but, "Thus believes the Catholic Church"; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles (Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia [A.D. 359]).

350 AD: Hilary of Poitiers

Here, St. Hilary proclaims the doctrine of ever virgin Mary and denies that Mary had any children besides Christ. Where did he get that?

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

360 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem

Here, St. Cyril calls St. Peter the CHIEF of the Apostles and the keeper of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Protestants say that is a tradition.

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

370 AD: Basil

Basil

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in these matters… (On the Holy Spirit 27 [A.D. 375]).

375 AD: Gregory of Nyssa

400 AD: Jerome

Jerome

Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).

405 AD: John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom

"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]).

425 AD: Augustine

Here St. Augustine speaks of the primacy of Peter. Protestants say that is a tradition.

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

425 AD: John Cassian

Here St. John says that Mary is the Mother of God. Protestants say that is a tradition.John Cassian
You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

450 AD: Theodoret

Theodoret

I have ever kept the faith of the Apostles undefiled… So have I learnt not only from the Apostles and the Prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance [styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees] (Letters no. 89 [circa A.D. 443]).

CalvinEach one of these early church fathers below spoke for scriptures only, not tradition.

"the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)

Lets get some context:
Part 1

1. The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need ofhuman teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius , come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred andinspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or thinkfaith. in Christ unreasonable.....

Where does that say, Scripture alone? Where does it deny the value of the Teachers passing down the faith?

Calvin:

Here's another: 

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9)

Let's get more context, below:

2. Now they seek to exhibit the foundation for their dogma by citing the word in the law, I am the God of your fathers: you shall have no other gods beside me; and again in another passage, I am the first,He says, and the last; and beside me there is none other. Thus they say they prove that God is one. And then they answer in this manner: If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God; and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself. But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner.....3. In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to provethatChrist was a mere man…..

Above, he explains how heretics use Scripture alone to falsify the Word of God.  So, if he was teaching Scripture alone, why would he show how heretics twist Scripture?

4. Let us, as I said, see how he is confuted, and then let us set forth the truth. Now he quotes the words,Egypt has laboured, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, and so forth on to the words,For You are the God of Israel, the Saviour. And these words he cites without understanding what precedes them. For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures.

And then in the end, after showing how they mutilate the Scriptures because they ignore the tradition, he gives the remedy:….

17. These testimonies are sufficient for the believing who study truth, and the unbelieving credit no testimony. For the Holy Spirit, indeed, in the person of the apostles, has testified to this, saying, And who has believed our report? Therefore let us not prove ourselves unbelieving, lest the word spoken be fulfilled in us. Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Wordcame down from heaven, (and entered) into the holyVirginMary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rationalsoul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe in His name.

So, he shows you that the true reading of Scripture is in line with the Sacred Tradition passed down by the Apostles.  Read the words in red above.  Therefore, he is not teaching the Protestant doctrine of Scripture alone.

Calvin

Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked." (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8)

Really? He says in there to follow the Tradition. So what is your point?

For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law

Calvin

What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3)

??? Didn't you understand what he said?

If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here.

He is teaching Scripture AND Tradition. Not Scripture alone.

Calvin..of course there are other examples....

There are none.

Therefore, if it was written by the early church fathers of the RCC....how could it have been a protestant invention?

It was not written by the Early Church Fathers. It was invented by the Protestants.

I do not see how the 2 reconcile. Clearly the Protestants did not "invent " but rather went back to the teachings of these early church fathers.

The Protestants invented it and then some tried to justify it by taking certain ECF teachings out of context. 

Thoughts?

A bunch of them.

First, didn't you ever wonder how the ECF's, 99% of which were Bishops of the Church, who commanded authority over their flocks, 99% of which were also priests, who believed in faith AND WORKS, celebrated the Mass and all the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, and taught the doctrines of Purgatory, Marian doctrines, prayer to the Saints and virtually everything that Protestants have discarded, didn't you wonder how they could believe all these things and still somehow believe in the Protestant doctrine of Scripture alone?

You didn't think it through very well did you?

Sincerely,

De Maria