Saturday, December 10, 2011

A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #2

Hello, this is Algo.
In my previous post I began sharing my recent visit to the Catholic Answers Forum.
I will now continue the discussion:

Old Dec 3, '11, 8:20 pm
po18guy's Avatar
Forum Master
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 13,717
Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.
Default Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
And who's words am I twisting?
First, I do not trust your quotes, your sources, or (particularly) your contexts. Second, not one of your sources was laying doctrine down. Since all were members of the unified Catholic Church, do you even realize what you are saying? Either they were stupid to remain in the Church, or the Church was stupid to keep them.

Instead of tilting at windmills, why not, for once in your life, consider that the Church whose council and Pope authorized every single word in your bible, just might be right?

You are clearly not here to learn.
__________________



Notice how po18guy expresses his mistrust of my quotes, my sources and (particularly) my context.
This is truly ironic in light of the fact that in this same thread he seems to affirm an alleged quote by Augustine:

Old Dec 5, '11, 2:47 pm
po18guy's Avatar
Forum Master
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 13,717
Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.
Default Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odell View Post
You like to quote Augustine

"Rome has spoken; the case is closed" Augustine (Sermon 131:10)
Ouch! Touche.
__________________

Now anyone that has watched the White v. Stravinskas Debate on Purgatory will recall this famous exchange:


See also:

Augustine’s Sermon 131

I continue with my response to po18guy:

"First, I do not trust your quotes or your sources. "

Well, at least I posted my sources unlike some folks that post at CAF.

"Second, not one of your sources was laying doctrine down."

That's because the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not a doctrine at the time of these writers. And in fact the notion of Mary's Immaculate Conception as defined by Ineffabilis Deus was nowhere taught in the early church (though Pope Pius IX claimed it was).

"Since all were members of the unified Catholic Church, do you even realize what you are saying?"

I agree, they were members of unified (c)atholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church.

"Either they were stupid to remain in the Church, or the Church was stupid to keep them"

No comment.

"Instead of tilting at windmills, why not, for once in your life, consider that the Church whose council and Pope authorized every single word in your bible, just might be right?"

Actually I have considered that and concluded that every word in my Bible was authorized by HE that breathed out every word. Long before their was a 'single' monarchial bishop in Rome or an official canon was defined at Trent.

"You are clearly not here to learn."

Actually I have learned a lot. Many of the questions and challenges here have compelled me to study more vigorously than I normally do.
continued:
Augustine (354-430 AD):
Hilary says that all flesh comes from sin apart from the flesh of the one who came without sin in the likeness of sinful flesh. He says that the one who cried out, I was conceived in iniquities (Ps 51:7), “was born from a sinful origin and under the law of sin.
Saint Ambrose says that “the little ones who have been baptized are changed from their wickedness back to the original state of their nature.” He says that “by reason of his immaculate birth the Holy Lord Jesus alone of those born of a woman experienced no infection from earthly corruption. He says that we all die in Adam, because through one man sin entered the world (Rom 5:12) and his sin is the death of all. He says that in his wound “the whole human race would have died, if that Samaritan had not come down and healed his grave wounds.” He says that Adam existed and all existed in him, that Adam perished and all perished in him. He says that we are stained with infection before we were born and that a human being is not conceived free of iniquity, because, as he says, we are “conceived in the sin of our parents and we are born in their transgressions. Birth itself has its own infections, and nature itself does not have only one infection.” He says that the devil is a money lender to whom sinful Eve “put the whole human race in debt with succeeding generations subject to usury.” He says that Eve was deceived by the devil “in order to trip up her husband and place their descendants in debt.” He says that Adam was so wounded by the bite of the serpent “that we all limp because of that wound.” He says that through the union of the bodies of the man and the woman no one is immune from transgression, but that “the one who is immune from transgression,” that is, Christ the Lord, “is also immune from that manner of conception.”
See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 290-291.

Augustine (354-430 AD):
Say to this man [i.e., Ambrose] if you dare, that he makes the devil the creator of human beings who are born from the union of both sexes. He, after all, exempted Christ alone from the bonds of the guilty race, because he was born of a virgin. All the others coming after Adam are born under the debt of sin, the sin which the devil, of course, planted in them. Refute this man for condemning marriage, for he says that only the son of the virgin was born without sin. Charge this man with denying the attainment of virtue, since he says that vices are implanted in the human race at the very beginning of conception.
See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book II:2, 4, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 306.

Augustine (354-430 AD):
Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he [i.e. Ambrose] says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth ; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.”
NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47-Sentences from Ambrose in favor of Original Sin. This same citation of Ambrose is likewise found in John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Ssaint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91; and again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, 7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 272 and 290.

Augustine (354-430 AD) in answer to the charge of Julian that he had handed over Mary herself by the condition of her being born, said: We do not hand Mary over to the devil because of the condition of her birth, but we do not do this precisely because that condition is removed by the grace of rebirth.
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book 4:122, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 487.

Huh? Did Augustine just say that Mary had a Rebirth?
What did she need that for?

continued:

Augustine (354-430 AD):
See, here is Ambrose; see what he says about what you are attacking. He says, “He could not alone be righteous, since the whole human race went astray, if it were not that, because he was born of a virgin, he was not held by the law of the guilty race.” Listen further; listen and stop the impudent tongue of your effrontery by shedding tears: “For intercourse with a man did not open the gates of the Virgin’s womb; rather, the Holy Spirit poured spotless seed into that inviolable womb. For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth; rather, he shrugged it off by his celestial majesty.”
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91. See also this approval of Ambrose cited again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, 7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 272 and 290.

Augustine (354-430):
In a similar way we can speak of our Lord’s “sin,” meaning what sin brought about, because he assumed his flesh from that very stock that by sin had deserved death. To put it briefly: Mary, descended from Adam, died because of sin. Adam died because of sin, and the Lord’s flesh, derived from Mary, died to abolish sins.
Works of Saint Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Expositions of the Psalms 33-50, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), Exposition 2 of Psalm 34 (35), p. 62.
Latin text: Sic ergo peccatum Domini, quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. In Psalmum XXXIV, Sermo II, §3, PL 36:335.
Latin text: Sic ergo peccatum Domini, quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria [Note: [Col. 0335] Ita Lov. et maxima pars Mss. At Er., Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae, Adam mortuus est propter peccatum, etc. Duo Mss. Vatic. et Colb., Maria ex Adam, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, etc. Flor., denique, Maria ex Adam primo, Adam secundus ortus ex Maria propter delenda peccata.] ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. In Psalmum XXXIV, Sermo II, §3, PL 36:335.

Augustine (354-430):

In the advice and admonition he gives that I rather apply my effort to stamping out this deadly heresy from the Churches, he refers to that same Pelagian heresy which I urge you, my brother, with all my strength, to avoid with the utmost care, whenever you either think or argue about the origin of souls, so that the belief may not steal upon you that any soul at all, save that of the unique Mediator, was free from inheritance of Adam, that original sin under which we are bound when we are begotten but from which we are freed by our second birth.

FC, Vol. 30, Saint Augustine Letters 165-203, Letter 202A, To Optatus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1955), p. 420.
Latin text: Quod vero admonet et hortatur, ut magis demus operam, ut perniciosissima haeresis de Ecclesiis auferatur; illam ipsam Pelagianam haeresim dicit, quam cautissime ut devites, quantum possum, frater, admoneo, cum de animarum origine sive cogitas, sive jam disputas; ne tibi subripiat esse credendum, ullam prorsus animam nisi unius Mediatoris, non ex Adam trahere originale peccatum, generatione devinctum, regeneratione solvendum. Epistola CCII, Caput VIII, §20, PL 33:937-38.

Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532):
For the flesh of Mary, which had been conceived in iniquities in the usual manner, was the flesh of sin which begot the Son of God in the likeness of the flesh of sin...

For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), pp. 180-181.
Latin Text: Caro quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus humana fuerat solemnitate concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in similitudinem carnis peccati. Epistola XVII, Cap. VI, §13, PL 65:458.

John of Damascus (652-750):
But God made him by nature sinless, and endowed him with free will. By sinless, I mean not that sin could find no place in him (for that is the case with Deity alone),
but that sin is the result of the free volition he enjoys rather than an integral part of his nature165 ; that is to say, he has the power to continue and go forward in the path of goodness, by co-operating with the divine grace, and likewise to turn from good and take to wickedness, for God has conceded this by conferring freedom of will upon him. NPNF2: Vol. IX, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 12.

Then it gets a bit emotional and rather odd:

Old Dec 3, '11, 10:28 pm
Regular Member
Join Date: September 29, 2010
Posts: 2,382
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct?

[quote=Algo1;8650101]
Quote:
Oh, so Tertullian is now blessed. I was almost certain that you were going to call him a heritic and throw him under the bus.

And who's words am I twisting?

And who are you that we are supposed to believe you? So is quoting the Church fathers...without taking the proper context and determining what they are really are writing about is supposed to prove something?

And what does denigrating the very mother of God is supposed to accomplish? The church has always believed that Mary was sinless in her earthly life....so what is your problem with it?

Do you think saying these things agains Mary is endearing you to her Son? Don't you think Jesus does not see what you are doing here? Don't you think attacking Mary is also not hurting her Son?




Quote:
Once again I will demonstrate that numerous Early Church Writers and Early Church Fathers claimed that "God alone is without sin."
continued:

The Bible actually says there is a couple who were also sinless...righteous in the eyes of God.....from Luke 1...

5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.


So, if both Zechariah and Elizabeth could both be righteous and blameless....here you have an example who were blameless....don't you think Mary could also be righteous and blameless...with the grace she was tasked to carry...the saviour of the world?

And one more from my friend po18guy:

Old Dec 3, '11, 11:27 pm
po18guy's Avatar
Forum Master
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 13,717
Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.
Default Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
[b] That's because the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not a doctrine at the time of these writers. And in fact the notion of Mary's Immaculate Conception as defined by Ineffabilis Deus was nowhere taught in the early church (though Pope Pius IX claimed it was).
First of all, dogma is declared in response to heresy. When a sudden challenge to Mary's state appeared on earth, the Church answered it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
[b] I agree, they were members of unified (c)atholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Its headquarters were in Rome the minute that the Apostle Peter arrived there. That was sealed when Peter was martyred in 67. You clearly believe in division over unity. It's your choice, like believing or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
[b] Actually I have considered that and concluded that every word in my Bible was authorized by HE that breathed out every word. Long before their was a 'single' monarchial bishop in Rome or an official canon was defined at Trent.
And, where did the Sacred Table of Contents come from? Study a little more history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 View Post
[b] Actually I have learned a lot. Many of the questions and challenges here have compelled me to study more vigorously than I normally do.
All you have learned is to entrench yourself in a belief system that is systematically falling apart day by day. I do not believe that, for one minute, the Church that you have been taught to hate was open to your serious inquiry. That is a tragedy.
__________________

And then I got this:

Forum Message
Your account has been locked for the following reason:
Contempt for Catholicism and proselytizing
This change will be lifted: Never


My private interpretation of this message is:

"How Dare You Quote Our Fathers"

There are several more interesting quotes in that thread. In particular several from a poster named Cat Herder.
I hope to continue this series drawing from other threads of different topics that I attempted to interact with over the past year.

17 comments:

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

One side's angry, the other side's ... stifling their own laughter.

I'll choose the side stifling laughter.

Ryan said...

If what happened to you had happened to me a few years ago, I'd be very irritated. But one of the more useful things I've learned is to accept that I can't argue people into submission. I can present an argument, but if they pitch a fit about it, I have better things to do.

Algo said...

T.U&D
I agree that some of their comments would indeed be very humorous if they were not so tragic.

Algo said...

Ryan,
Very sound advise. However I expected to be banned eventually. My friend Miguel Sastre did some excellent work at C.A.F http://forums.catholic.com/search.php?searchid=9797908. He was very cordial and yet he was banned about a week before I was.

Pete Holter said...

Oh no!

Too bad you and Miguel got banned. I enjoyed the little interaction I was able to have with each of you.

In Christ,
Pete

Ken said...

Algo, good quoting of the early church fathers and writers!

Rhology said...

My only question is how in the world Algo lasted this long in that forum.

Miguel Sastre said...

Hey Algo,

Thanks for your patient research and well-reasoned responses on CAF.

As far as my "ban" goes, oh well. I actually expected it to come much earlier. The "Inquisition" mentality of some of their moderators is lamentable, but also understandable.

I at least have to give them credit for tolerating us for as long as they did (given how often we dismantled their arguments before their very eyes).

Also, I would be remiss not to mention the few "class act" Catholics who maintained charity throughout, such as Pete Holter and Eric Filmer.

Similar to your post here, I've documented one of my more negative experiences (for which--amazingly-- I was not banned) on my blog in two pats. See "Every Careless Word."

Now I'm just grateful for all the extra time I have for writing and research. CAF doesn't really "go anywhere" anyway, so I'm actually glad that that door has closed.

Algo said...

@Ken Thanks, I got many of the quotes from our friend D.T.K. I was also ready with the quotes that TFan had researched for his excellent articles found here:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/search/label/Immaculate%20Conception

Algo said...

Yes Pete, I too enjoyed interacting with you at CAF. Maybe we can continue a bit here in the future.

Algo said...

@Rhology, I too am surprised I lasted that long. I think part of the reason is that I took the whole summer off. Also most of my posting was on topics less emotionally charged than the B.V.M. Once I started posting on the Immaculate Conception, I knew I was on thin ice. My friend Miguel posted much more than I did and his arguments went back and forth much longer.

James Swan said...

I've yet to banned from CA. I got kicked off Envoy, and then I was instantly zapped off the Coming Home forums before even making a post.

On the CA forums, i've linked to my own blog as well as aomin, and I've never had a problem.

Then again, I don't post all that often, and typically my subject matter must nor be all that important.

My experience is that the CA folks have been fair to me. They must not realize the large amount of mp3 clips from CA live that I supplied aomin with over the years- including the Tim Staples commercial that after we played, they went back and edited it.

Algo said...

James, better save all your posts over there. It won't be long now.

Algo said...

Miguel, yes. Besides Pete and Eric I also found guanophore to be very cordial. I found all 3 of them quite challenging in a good way.

Scott said...

Regarding "Roma Locuta Est..."
Algo said:Now anyone that has watched the White v. Stravinskas Debate on Purgatory will recall this famous exchange: (link is in original)

While White was "technically correct" here, that St. Augustine didn't use "those words" - he did indeed say that Rome had spoken (sent rescripts) and did use the actual words of "causa finita est" (the case/cause is finished/closed). It is quite disingenuous to assert St. Augustine didn't say that - because HE DID! Not using the exact wording of "Roma locuta est" - but the statement is accurate, Rome spoke and the cause is finished.

I've been round and round with White (and others) on this topic, much of it is documented here:

The Roma Locuta Est Saga.

As for the White/Stravinskas Debate, I acknowledge that Fr. Stravinskas got flustered and had he been a bit more prepared to answer - he could have put White to shame over this, but White made Stravinskas look bad on that account. White "won" this part of the debate, but Truth did not win out.

Scott<<<

Algo said...

Scott, thanks for the link. I am reading all of what's there. Fascinating.
Maybe Fr. Stravinskas will debate James White again in the future. I bet if Fr. S. were more prepared, it would be a very good debate. They almost debated again last year on the I.C.

Turretinfan said...

"For already two councils have, in this cause, sent letters to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back. The cause is ended: would that the error might some day end! Therefore we admonish so that they may take notice, we teach so that they may be instructed, we pray so that their way be changed."

1) The appeal is to settled conciliar authority (not papal authority as such) - in other words a more accurate summary would be "two councils have spoken - the case is closed."

2) The reference to rescripts is a reference to what? It's a reference to a response from Rome regarding the decisions of the councils. Does such a rescript make either (1) have its own infallibility or (2) give infallibility to the decrees of the councils? That's certainly not true about papal rescripts today. If the answer to both is "no," then we see that the entire appeal to this line from Augustine is actually disingenuous.

In other word, at best for the Roman position it simply means that Augustine viewed the ecclesiastical process as complete - and there is no particular reason to view Augustine as thinking that. Why wasn't one council enough? Why is two the magic number? Augustine doesn't explain that, because that isn't what Augustine means. He means that ecclesiastically, this is basically a dead horse that has been thoroughly beaten already.

With more preparation, Stravinskas would not have brought up the sermon at all.

-TurretinFan