While Rome tries to the appeal to the Scriptures to justify her supremacy, she has to contort and add to the Scriptures to make it work.
For Mary to fulfil her mission as the Mother of Jesus, the God-man, she was prepared. God prepared her at her conception by saving her from sin. She is devoted to the service of the Lord.
There is a clear contradiction in being in communion with an heretic, even the Pope. Some try to save the position by saying Jesus deposes the Pope. Here's why that only creates more contradictions.
Seeing the main contradiction of papal supremacy, we see the further implications of embracing this contradiction: the Church is no longer a perfect society.
If Popes can be heretics, but faithful Catholics cannot be in communion with heretics, then what is there to do? Back in the 14th to 15th centuries, the Church found a solution. Is it still tenable for a Roman Catholic today?
Continuing our examination of papal supremacy, if communion requires common faith, who refuses communion to those without that faith?
Part of the Papal Supremacy Series. What is Faith?
What happened to Apologia Anglicana? The old owner is a now a Papist?
Benedict XVI saw both the Novus Ordo and the TLM as equal expression of the "lex orandi". Francis teaches only the Novus Ordo? Who is right? And what even is the "lex orandi"?
Leo XIII in 1896 released Apostolicae Curae, declaring Anglican orders invalid. However, did he properly understand Anglican theology? Some Anglican bishops responded quickly saying he didn't. Here's why we think they're right.