Replies

In fact, no alleged "private revelations" --- including visions, dreams, infused knowledge, mystical appearances and so forth --- are to be used as sources of doctrine, nor are any of the faithful obliged to believe in them de fide --- not even if the apparent vision or locution was one that you, yourself experienced.

Keeping this in mind will help keep your criticisms of the Church better-defined and more judicious.

Just for the sake of accuracy: the fact that Ann Barnhardt or Catherine of Siena credited a purported vision, does not mean that the vision was accepted as a source of doctrine by the Catholic Church. In fact, no alleged "private revelations" --- including visions, dreams, infused knowledge, mystical appearances and so forth --- are to be used as sources of doctrine

I understand that these are not doctrine, and they are not even supposed to improve or complete what Rome holds as Divine revelation , yet Rome can affirm and use them under the premise that they contribute to a deeper understanding of the faith. However, i was not asserting this was RC doctrine, but the use this PR was consistent with Rome invoking extraBiblical material as being the word of God. And demons being repelled by sodomy is an unwarranted even as an interpretation and contrary to what Scripture does reveal about demons.

In fact the devil, who seeks to pervert what God made good and to imitate the almighty, is the one behind sodomy, thus it is a product of idolatry, making gods according to man's own perverse liking, as well making a perverse sexual union. (Rn. 1:26ff)

And thus the use of this weakens his argument. But instead of reproving this profane tale, RCs repeat it as Scripture is not their supreme authority.

But thank you for to trying to help me keep my criticisms of Rome better-defined and more judicious. That is a worthy goal.