Are there any official sources of Orthodox teaching?

[samir]

I quoted the catechism from Trent, as well as one other thing that came from Trent. so yeah, I did. as far as saints go, to say their visions are not Catholic teaching is just silly (Lourdes, Fatima, etc) and you have shown nothing to show that they are not RC teaching.

I thought about asking on OBOB for your sake but it's such a ridiculous question that would indicate knowing nothing about RCism so I decided not to ask. I noticed you still haven't shown saints visions are RC teaching.

I have verified it. what they said falls in line with Trent and their saints. you are the one who disregards saints, and have yet to show why those specific visions and the stuff from Trent are not RC teaching. you have quoted stuff but have only given your interpretation. nothing you have shown contradicts a literal fire aside from you. whatever I quoted that affirms a literal fire you say is not RC teaching, and the only thing you have to back that up is you.

You're still struggling with the basics. I don't have time to educate you and I doubt you'd listen anyway.

well, seeing as how we don't believe in purgatory, you would be hard pressed to find a saint who teaches it. that being said, I also quoted stuff that came from one of their councils. if you can show doctrinal statements from the councils and the saints, you might have something.

I think I will have to post the quotes.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I thought about asking on OBOB for your sake but it's such a ridiculous question that would indicate knowing nothing about RCism so I decided not to ask.

yeah, your ad hominem is showing.

I noticed you still haven't shown saints visions are RC teaching.

"Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium [i.e., collective sense of the faithful] knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church." -Catholic Catechism 67.

seeing as how none of the saints visions say anything other than a literal fire, unless you have found otherwise, that does fall in with the teaching. so unless you have something where the magisterium clearly says that the only way to interpret the teaching of purgatory is simple metaphor, you really again are only showing your own opinion. so if the vision of the saint falls in line with RC teaching, it is a part of the teaching. you have yet to show that they are not.

You're still struggling with the basics. I don't have time to educate you and I doubt you'd listen anyway.

and your prelest is showing. the only thing about the basics is how you interpret it that I have an issue with. you are only saying you are reading RC correctly, but not showing how you are reading them right.

I think I will have to post the quotes.

I am all eyes when/if you do.

 

[samir]

"Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium [i.e., collective sense of the faithful] knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church." -Catholic Catechism 67.

Thanks for the quote! When read in context it confirms what I said earlier that saints visions are NOT RC teaching:

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

seeing as how none of the saints visions say anything other than a literal fire, unless you have found otherwise, that does fall in with the teaching.

Irrelevant.

so unless you have something where the magisterium clearly says that the only way to interpret the teaching of purgatory is simple metaphor, you really again are only showing your own opinion.

Already answered more than once.

so if the vision of the saint falls in line with RC teaching, it is a part of the teaching.

Incorrect.

you have yet to show that they are not.

Already answered more than once.

and your prelest is showing. the only thing about the basics is how you interpret it that I have an issue with. you are only saying you are reading RC correctly, but not showing how you are reading them right.

Feel free to ask on the OBOB board. I'm sure RCs will be able to correct your misunderstandings.

I am all eyes when/if you do.

When I have time I'll post them. Can't wait to listen to you change your tune.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks for the quote! When read in context it confirms what I said earlier that saints visions are NOT RC teaching:

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

which is why I said they must fall in line with the magesterium. you should read the last line of what you just posted. it does not say that visions are not teaching. it says you must discern to find out what is and is not, and has the standard for how that works. plus I noticed you cut off the last part of 67.

Irrelevant.

not really.

Already answered more than once.

no you didn't.

Feel free to ask on the OBOB board. I'm sure RCs will be happy to correct your misunderstandings.

I have spoken to RC face to face that are priests and non priests alike, which I trust more than an internet forum.

When I have time I'll post them. Can't wait to watch you change your tune.

again, I am all eyes if/when you do. and your prelest is still showing

 

[samir]

which is why I said they must fall in line with the magesterium. you should read the last line of what you just posted. it does not say that visions are not teaching.

I read all of what I posted. It says the faithful guided by the magisterium can discern what is authentic in private revelations which also means they can discern what is not authentic. Therefore, saints visions are not RC teaching. What it did not say is irrelevant.

it says you must discern to find out what is and is not

You just showed you believe your own claim is false since if part of their visions aren't authentic then saints visions are obviously not RC teaching.

plus I noticed you cut off the last part of 67.

I cut off nothing relevant.

Last part of 67 - Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

Since it is obvious the RCC does not accept non-Christian revelations, there was no need to quote it.

I have spoken to RC face to face that are priests and non priests alike, which I trust more than an internet forum

You probably misunderstood them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I read all of what I posted. It says the faithful guided by the magisterium can discern what is authentic in private revelations which also means they can discern what is not authentic. Therefore, saints visions are not RC teaching. What it did not say is irrelevant.

it actually does not say that saints visions are not the teaching. nowhere did it actually say that. what it said is that, as you just said, the magesterium determines what is true. unless you want to argue that there can be a vision that shows something to be true yet is not true teaching of the Catholics. what it did not say should not be assumed.

You just showed you believe your own claim is false since if part of their visions aren't authentic then saints visions are obviously not RC teaching.

no, I actually did not say that. I said the magesterium allows for the discernment. that does not mean the visions are not Catholic teaching (and the catechism also does not say that either).

I cut off nothing relevant.

Last part of 67 - Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

Since it is obvious the RCC does not accept non-Christian revelations, there was no need to quote it.

which means that it can accept the private revelations of saints if they fall inline with Roman teaching. to say that God would give a vision to multiple saints, and that the magesterium would not correct or contradict them, and to say that is not a teaching of the Church (which you have not shown to be the case) is just silly.

You probably misunderstood them.

coming from someone who on another thread asked why pray to saint when you can go to God alone, who is trying to defend Roman teaching, this means next to nil

 

[samir]

it actually does not say that saints visions are not the teaching. nowhere did it actually say that. what it said is that, as you just said, the magesterium determines what is true. unless you want to argue that there can be a vision that shows something to be true yet is not true teaching of the Catholics. what it did not say should not be assumed.

There would be no need to discern what is authentic if everything in saints visions was always authentic. If it is not authentic then it is obviously not RC teaching.

no, I actually did not say that. I said the magesterium allows for the discernment. that does not mean the visions are not Catholic teaching (and the catechism also does not say that either).

Why do you think a saints vision that the magisterium discerned is not authentic is RC teaching?

which means that it can accept the private revelations of saints if they fall inline with Roman teaching. to say that God would give a vision to multiple saints, and that the magesterium would not correct or contradict them, and to say that is not a teaching of the Church (which you have not shown to be the case) is just silly.

Already answered.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There would be no need to discern what is authentic if everything in saints visions was always authentic. If it is not authentic then it is obviously not RC teaching.

if that were the case, the catechism would not have said that the magesterium discerns. it obviously can be Roman teaching if the magesterium says so.

Why do you think a saints vision that the magisterium discerned is not authentic is RC teaching?

because demons and human fallenness can get in the way and make something false. that is why the catechism states that the full revelation is in Christ, and if a private revelation does not contradict that, it is the teaching of the Roman confession. so if some saint has a vision that says Mohammed is a prophet, the magesterium would say no and the saint would repent. he could have a true vision according to Rome like Lourdes or Fatima or Guadeloupe or whatever.

Already answered.

there was no question. you cannot answer a question I did not ask.

 

[samir]

if that were the case, the catechism would not have said that the magesterium discerns. it obviously can be Roman teaching if the magesterium says so.

If saints visions were RC teaching there would be nothing to discern.

because demons and human fallenness can get in the way and make something false. that is why the catechism states that the full revelation is in Christ, and if a private revelation does not contradict that, it is the teaching of the Roman confession.

That's not how it works in the RCC.

so if some saint has a vision that says Mohammed is a prophet, the magesterium would say no and the saint would repent. he could have a true vision according to Rome like Lourdes or Fatima or Guadeloupe or whatever.

If the vision did not disagree with RC teaching there would be no need to correct and no need to repent.


This is my last post on this thread. I'm tired of discussing this topic and I have nothing more to say about purgatory or the sources of RC teaching.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If saints visions were RC teaching there would be nothing to discern.

evidence for this statement? because the history of the book of Hebrews and Revelation show otherwise (and that happened prior to the Schism).

That's not how it works in the RCC.

evidence for this? can you actually name how Rome has accepted or rejected certain saints' visions?

If the vision did not disagree with RC teaching there would be no need to correct and no need to repent.

no kidding, hence me suggesting something I know they would reject.

This is my last post on this thread. I'm tired of discussing this topic and I have nothing more to say about purgatory or the sources of RC teaching.

if you say so