Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: daniel1212; Campion

As to the Catholics in the list, we still believe in the core fundamentals. Bishops like Francis may come and go, but in the end, the core of our beliefs are the same.

This isn’t the same between you and the (Jesus is an archangel and you gotta worship only on Saturday) Adventists or between you and oneness (”there be no Trinity”) pentecostals.

Hence your entire argument falls flat on its face, daniel.


48 posted on 10/05/2020 1:37:26 AM PDT by Cronos (2001-2020)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos
As to the Catholics in the list, we still believe in the core fundamentals. Bishops like Francis may come and go, but in the end, the core of our beliefs are the same. This isn’t the same between you and the (Jesus is an archangel and you gotta worship only on Saturday) Adventists or between you and oneness (”there be no Trinity”) pentecostals. Hence your entire argument falls flat on its face, daniel.

What? You think my list did include your vast multitudes of Democrat-voting liberals, or do you mean Teddy K Catholics whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death believe in all your the core fundamentals? And dismiss the conservative dissension against V2 and so much modern Cath teaching as not being contrary to the core fundamental of submission to the pope?

If you want to argue for sola ecclesia as an alternative to holding Scripture as being the wholly reliable, wholly God-inspired authoritative word of God then you need to allow yourself to be led like a docile flock to follow the Pastors (Vehementer Nos) as broadly so much papal teaching requires in encyclicals, bulls and public papal teaching and actions - which thus includes treating Teddy K Catholics as she does (thereby showing her interpretation of canon law), in contrast to the dissension in your ranks based as RCs presuming that they know better than the Vatican how Rc teaching is to be understood.

The fact remains that you must either require RC cultic submission to leadership (blind leading the blind) or face the fact that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is not Scriptural, and is not how the church began. And that you cannot escape the problem of interpretation, from what magisterial level each belongs to and what required assent this entails, to the meanings of which. But that the limited unity of the NT church was under manifestly Scriptural men and teaching of God which church began in dissent from the historical magisterium. And that while evangelical churches fall short of the prima NT church, yet Rome, whose distinctive teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed is not even in the running.

Hence your entire argument falls flat on its face, Cronos.

75 posted on 10/05/2020 12:00:33 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | 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