Since "following the Holy Spirit" is markedly different for all believers (and, like it or not, provable according to the person!) your post must be identified as a personal faith statement. In that respect, it is no different in kind from any other personal faith statement.
The Apostle's taught more than just whats' in the New Testament.
Certain men. 'Called "Apostle's." Look 'em up. Their in they're.
No.
No (I pray "Our Father" as Jesus taught) and yes (I pray also to Mary, Mother of God, and I ask her to "pray for us sinner's"). Jesus listen's to His mother . . . .
I baptized my children as infant's. So yes. Belief and repentance are later event's.
N/A
N/A
N/A
False.
Jesus never taught you anything. Context, context.
He said John 20:21 KJV. His Apostle's taught to pray to her, and there teaching office, Peters supreme pastorship, the papacy, teach's us today to do so.
She did not die, and beside that, why do you believe that those in heaven cannot hear us?
Contrary to what you and other non-Catholic's believe, Mary and Jesus, just like other mother's and son's, have an everlasting relationship. "Mother of God" come's from the Greek word for "God-bearer;" she who gave birth to [the Son of] God.
Who care's. Seriously, nobody care's about this.
I already did. The Churches' Sacred Tradition come's down from the Apostle's by word-of-mouth from bishop-to-bishop. Your not a bishop, so your not privy to these word-of-mouth exchange's.
Prove it.
And both Peter and Paul lived and died their.
Have you ever read about the Roman's in the Greek Old Testament, that Martin Luther and the Reformer's saw fit to expunge from the Churches' Bible? They'res actually quite a lot about them in their, if you've ever looked.
No, you made that up.
You just show me a perfect Christian, and I'll show you the Apostle's, because they (beside's Mary) are the pinnacle's of our 1 historic faith, and they weren't perfect.
We are to interpret scripture.
There's no such thing as an unbiased source---including the ones from which you've derived your present assumptions and beliefs.
No need, since this has already been done by Catholics for centuries. The sources I provided contain precisely the information you requested.
The information would be exactly the same whether I cited the sources I did, or wasted my time duplicating the content of those sources by typing it out myself. You got the information you asked for, and so have no right to complain as though you haven't.
Your transparent excuse for continuing to willfully deny Christ's one historic Church is noted.
Yes, we are to interpret Scripture not according to our own preferences and opinions---or those of one of the myriad competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today---but according to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).
Unfortunately for your assumptions, the Bereans certainly did not hold to sola scriptura, as is plainly outlined here.
Not only can, but ultimately does.
Post #71
All Catholics, even the Eastern Orthodox Catholics bow to the “Holy Images”, and the relics (material possession of dead “Saints).
I believe this is a severe and mostly laity, mistake and heterodox. The Catholic church 'recognized' the canon, not created it. There are a lot of reasons this has to be true and why many Catholic authorities say the same thing. You have to 'write' the books to be the author.