Posted on 03/29/2014 7:53:18 AM PDT by STJPII
"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked.....
There was a time, not long ago, when Catholicism was synonymous with clear, unequivocal teaching. Like her or hate her, people knew where the Church stood on every important issue. The Baltimore Catechism, the precepts of the Church, Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, the Code of Canon Law, the various papal teachings that upheld truth and condemned error in no uncertain terms…people who had never darkened the doorstep of a Catholic Church were not ignorant of her most basic teachings. Catholic schoolchildren, on the other hand, could recite many of these core beliefs from memory.
Over the course of the 20th century, however, that began to change."
Naked begging of the question.
And a study of "the word of God/the Lord" will reveal that when something is called that, then it is subsequently written what it was, as is the case with Simeon here.
Then you admit your definition of God's Word and Simeon's are different.
It means neither, but that you are using another refuted RC straw man polemic. SS does not mean that all that can be known from God is in Scripture....
Please substantiate this straw man as RC teaching, as well as the refutation.
What is the basis for your assurance of Truth?
The interplay of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.
These little discussions would be much more profitable for you if you didn't persist in burying your points and/or questions in bloated epistles filled with Protestant incantations.
I could also ask why not read the Bible on the subject? Lewis is a good writer, but I don't know how he could expand on the topic.
Regarding EWTN, the question there is are those the official teachings of the Catholic Church? I think they are as I've read these on other Catholic sites. So then the issue comes back to do these line up with the Bible's position on salvation and forgiveness?
From what I've read in the Bible they do not.
Our salvation from God is a gift from Him. There is nothing we can do to earn it or keep it. Romans 6:23...for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
When you have an actual argument i can respond.
Not at all. I already had provided you to what abundantly evidences this to be true, and many in explanation, regardless of whether you accept them.
Then you admit your definition of God's Word and Simeon's are different.
You are going to have to learn to explain your reasoning. There is no contradiction. In Scripture, we see that the word of the Lord could come to a person before it is written, but we know what was by what is written, that being the assured word of God and standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced.
SS does not mean that all that can be known from God is in Scripture, as it testifies otherwise, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4)
Please substantiate this straw man as RC teaching, as well as the refutation.
Are you not arguing that contrary to SS, Simeon's personal revelation shows that what can be known from God can exists outside Scripture? If not explain. And as for the refutation, the texts i provided attests to their being more that can be known outside Scripture, and as shown, Westminster allows for "the light of nature," but in subjection to Scripture. If this is no your objection then you need to articulate what is.
What is the basis for your assurance of Truth?
The interplay of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.
Thanks for an answer but it needs clarification. Thus your basis for assurance of Truth rests upon how you see Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church working together to provide Truth? But that is reliance upon your fallible human reasoning, the problem of which the Magisterium is promoted as solving, unless you disagree with that premise. Or do you see evidences that lead you to rest upon the assured infallibility of the Magisterium for assurance of Truth?
These little discussions would be much more profitable for you if you didn't persist in burying your points and/or questions in bloated epistles filled with Protestant incantations.
They would be more profitable if you would both make your position and objections to the evidence presented clearer. Besides not doing so, i have many debates in the oven, and your delayed responses make it difficult to maintain a coherent flow.
An interesting assertion without any evidence presented. The RC church is riddled with human traditions which would make the most ardent Pharisee blush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.