church writings

[Winchester]

Why are we testing only the Roman Rite?

Do you like the Ukrainian, or the Melkite better?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Your poll is silly. As usual. [/quote]
You could at leat elaborate on why it's silly...
I can see a couple reasons but.. i should have asked "how often.. do you have trouble etc" or something like that.
And at least I'm tryin to make polls and doin better than many.. I'd like to see you make one.. at least one..
maybe even show me how to make this poll better...
but of course you'll be open to criticism, and you will be intellectually criticized, so I doubt you'll do it...

Edited August 11, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 11 2005, 12:18 PM']You could at leat elaborate on why it's silly...
I can see a couple reasons but.. i should have asked "how often.. do you have trouble etc" or something like that.
And at least I'm tryin to make polls and doin better than many.. I'd like to see you make one.. at least one..
maybe even show me how to make this poll better...
but of course you'll be open to criticism, and you will be intellectually criticized, so I doubt you'll do it...
[right][snapback]681999[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm afraid of criticism? You haven't seen me on Protestant boards have you. As for intellect, I recommend you don't get in to comments in that area.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]As for intellect, I recommend you don't get in to comments in that area. [/quote]

All I am saying is that you must not like criticism as you often post short criticisms and don't elaborate, at least for me. I'm sure you'd say you don't have time, want to waste time, or might even claim you're wasting your time on me.
You'd rather spend time with the ignorant protestants. Maybe you justify it to yourself that you're planting a seed; I'm sure you are. But doesn't it strike you as shallow when protestants convert simply because the extremely wrong surface impressions they had didn't hold up, and they simply didn't have the depth to probe deeper than what apolgetics such as yourself feed them? When you realize that catholics become protestants everyday just as fast, you begin to realize the shallowness of your apologetical endeavors. True, many of the Catholics who convert away are swept up in emotion and ignorant, but don't be so arrogant as to think that there aren't honest, intellectual protestants out there much smarter than the both of us who know everything you're going to feed them, but can still stand on their own protestant leg.
Maybe if you'd take the time to respond to more intellectual questions other than planning your next catholic apologetical, you'd open a few new horizans yourself. Maybe you could at least realize the limits of your faith and/or better yet to be intellectually honest enough to admit them once in awhile. Then I'd truly respect you beyond simply just another run of the mill admittedly sharp theologian who knows their side well.. and as someone who knows what they're talking about. As much as you tout your side just like everyone else and don't admit the limits of what you can and/or do know, I have no choice but to think you don't know the arguments against you. If you changed your style, I'd truly consider you an intellectual as well.

I'd take you on intellectually anyday.

Edited August 13, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

you all are too much sometimes.. hehe

it would be fun to have one on one show downs.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 12 2005, 08:20 PM']All I am saying is that you must not like criticism as you often post short criticisms and don't elaborate, at least for me. I'm sure you'd say you don't have time, want to waste time, or might even claim you're wasting your time on me.
You'd rather spend time with the ignorant protestants. Maybe you justify it to yourself that you're planting a seed; I'm sure you are. But doesn't it strike you as shallow when protestants convert simply because the extremely wrong surface impressions they had didn't hold up, and they simply didn't have the depth to probe deeper than what apolgetics such as yourself feed them? When you realize that catholics become protestants everyday just as fast, you begin to realize the shallowness of your apologetical endeavors. True, many of the Catholics who convert away are swept up in emotion and ignorant, but don't be so arrogant as to think that there aren't honest, intellectual protestants out there much smarter than the both of us who know everything you're going to feed them, but can still stand on their own protestant leg. 
Maybe if you'd take the time to respond to more intellectual questions other than planning your next catholic apologetical, you'd open a few new horizans yourself. Maybe you could at least realize the limits of your faith and/or better yet to be intellectually honest enough to admit them once in awhile. Then I'd truly respect you beyond simply just another run of the mill admittedly sharp theologian who knows their side well.. and as someone who knows what they're talking about. As much as you tout your side just like everyone else and don't admit the limits of what you can and/or do know, I have no choice but to think you don't know the arguments against you. If you changed your style, I'd truly consider you an intellectual as well. 

I'd take you on intellectually anyday.
[right][snapback]683603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[color=red] Did you miss the part where you were asked to edit the question of this thread? [/color]

[Myles Domini]

Dairy girl I am not familar with the writings of the Church of Edessa either and quite sketchy on the ante-Nicene's actually minus the very big ones e.g. St Ignatius of Antioch. However, I fail to see the need to go sifting through the non-major writers either. For instance say Titian did have a Lutheran view of the Eucharist, what would that mean? St Justin Martyr, for example, taught a platonist doctrine of creation with God as demiurge and not the creatio ex nihilo we're all used to. But again, so what? Origen taught that people in hell can be freed from their damnation. Again, so what? The fact of the matter is that the individual writers are not the voice of tradition. That being said they may well bare witness to tradition but at the same time they may well not e.g. Marcion and Valentinian. In order to prove themselves they need a credible witness to corroborate what they are saying and that witness is the Church.

[i]Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.[/i]--Adv.Her.III.3.2

Without the Church to bare witness to the testimony of the early writers as being in line with the traditions they recieved from the Apostles whatever they may or may not write means nothing. Take for instance the case of the gospels. How do we know that the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the real Acts of Sts Peter and Paul, and the protoevangelium of James should not be in Sacred Scripture? I mean some of them contain Catholic teachings. The last two for instance tell us that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome and that the Virgin Mary was from a young age completely consecrated to God and never once broke her vow of perpetual chastity. Why are these not in the canon then? The answer is that the only witness who could corroborate the content of those gospels deemed them as not having Divine Inspiration regardless of whatever goods could be found in them, some of which as I've said can actually vouched for by the Church's tradition.

The Church is the court of arbitration, she is the one who binds and looses, she is as St Irenaeus points out the definitive witness to what was taught by the foremost apostles and as such she can judge whether what individual members of the mystical body teach are in line with the apostolical teaching. I may like St Augustine but I cannot insist that those aspects of Augustine's teaching moderated by the Council of Orange in the 6th century are correct against the witness of the Church. Because the Church as an institution, as a whole, as a body, she is the oldest witness to these events. All the literature grows from her not the other way around. By apostolic succession she can claim eye witness status and as such she can tell me which parts of Augustine to accept and which parts to be weary about and I cant like Jean Calvin or Cornelius Jansen try to tell her otherwise.

Perhaps a lot of us are ignorant Catholics who dont bother to investigate our faith and I admit we would do well to know a little more. However, its not strictly neccessary to go as far back to Roman Edessa to apprehend the faith. Because we have eye witness testimony from the foremost apostles, because she was there she thus cannot err. She saw it, she lived it, she experienced the glory of God made man and she testifies to it. As the foremost eye witness hers is the most credible testimony and it is thus to her that we give the most weight when she tells us what we should and shouldn't believe. Indeed, it is no surprise thus that many of the decrees of Trent were ratified at the extraordinary pan-Orthodox synods of the 17th century. Indeed, it was at the pan-Orthodox synod of Jerusalem in 1672 where the Greek equivalent for transubstantiation, metamorphosis was adopted which is crucial to our debate because by that time the Orthodox were well aware of Protestant teaching on the matter (one patriarch of Constantinople even lost his throne for Calvinism) and they rejected it definatively as not encapsulating what they believed about the Eucharist.

The voice of one Edessan cannot drown out the voices of both the Latin and Greek churches at large, particularly that of the See of St Peter. The members of the Church must prove themselves to her, it is not for the Church to prove herself to them.

[thessalonian]

Dairy,

In case you missed it, I could care less if anyone considers me an intellectual or anything else. Enjoy your polls.

Edited August 15, 2005 by thessalonian