Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Elsie
I wasn't trying to say you were WRONG; but showing how the RCC seems to be able to conjure things up out of thin air; claiming WE wuz first; therefore we is RIGHT!

Not quite. She has employed forgeries to support her claims, and to teach for doctrines traditions of men, while Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Note The Assumption Of Mary In The Earliest Sources, but " It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

The only Divine evidence to Rome of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.

217 posted on 06/10/2014 8:31:24 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212
She has employed forgeries to support her claims, and to teach for doctrines traditions of men, while Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

I do so miss our MORMON FRiends...


Where can we find an 'OFFICIAL MORMON' teaching website??
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are considered unofficial by said officials.
 
At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.
 
This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.
 
Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.
 
This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used on FR by haters and bigots cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.
 
Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.
I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there.
The haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all really quite crystal clear.
--Ejonesie22

226 posted on 06/11/2014 3:57:38 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson