Dr. James White & response

  • Thread starter Thread starter rightandreason
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rightandreason

Guest
I have now several times addressed Dr. White on a statment he made on his radio program a week or so ago.This statement was on the Catholic Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary. He stated that we as Catholics could provide no evidence from the time of the First Council of Nicea regarding any Catholic teaching on our Blessed Mother. I gave him two early church father statements, and also provided him with the prayers of the Litrugy of Saint John Chrysostom which dates from around the time of this council, give or take a few years. Although the Church did not dogmaticly define the term Theotokos officially until the Council of Ephasus in 434, it was still being proclaimed in practice. There are prayers in the ancient liturgies which substantiate the belief of Mary as the Mother of God. example…
“Through the intercessions of theTheotokos, O Savior, save us.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: Through the intercessions of the Theotokos, O Savior, save us.
Both now and ever, and to ages of ages, Amen. Through the intercessions of the Theotokos, O Savior, save us.”
Then the liturgy also proclaims her ever virgin and immaculate.
“Especially our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary:”

James White however will not respond to a good argument these days. This is my latest email to him.

I have submitted several emails on the doctrine of Mary in the early Church to you, and yet you do not respond. You claimed on your radio show that nowhere in the early Church around the the time of the First Council of Nicea, was there any evidennce to substantiate the Catholic teachings on Mary. I gave you two or three concrete examples and yet you don’t respond. I can defeat many of your arguments against Catholic teaching by simpily bringing the ancient liturgies of the Church as my primary source of evidence. The fact is you cannot argue with faith in the action and practice of the Divine Liturgy over the last 2000 years. I would glady debate you on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist any day of the week armed primarily with the Church’s ancient Liturgies which proclaim this belief to the high heavens. The fact is that any Catholic that brings you concrete arguments you have no time for. You like to waste time bringing insulting statements on your website to give a false impression of Catholics as uncharitable. I will give you a nice written debate on the Real Presence for you to post on your website if you only had the courage to put it on and let people decide for themselves who has provided the real Truth.

I wonder, will he now respond?
 
James wanted me to post this on the forum. This comes directly from his post on his website. The first paragraph is mine then his response. Go to the following address. Then I have today sent him a response divided into three emails because of the space limitations. aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1550 Here is my response.

Hi James, thanks for responding to my email. I am sorry that you did not get my prior ones. I would like to fill in the gap if you don’t mind and explain the crux of my argument on my earlier emails. I hope you will post this so people will know where I was coming from. As I noted in my last email I propose to argue against your statements on Mary and the early Church and also the Real Presence by the prayers of the Church’s Divine Liturgies. These Liturgies were used during the time of the Council of Nicea and throughout the history of the Church. We know that the early Church did not consist of catechisms floating around with all of the doctrines of the faith written in de facto. In fact the early councils, and every council actually in the history of the Church were held to address certain doctrines at that particular time. Indeed the Council of Nicea was not held to address Marian doctrine. This however does not mean that no one at that time did not believe any of the Marian doctrines or the doctrine of the Real Presence. You used Saint Augustine’s writings as an argument against the Real Presence. First of all I never mentioned Augustine in my argument. What I can say is that Saint Augustine celebrated the Divine Liturgy, which explicitly has in its prayers the belief of Christ in the Real Presence. I will present these examples later. Either Saint Augustine was living a double life, celebrating and praying prayers proclaiming the Real Presence in the Liturgy, and then also writing against this belief in his writings, or you are misquoting him out of context. One of these has to be true. I will continue in next email since my space is limited.
My argument is that the Church did believe in the Real Presence, the Immaculate nature of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary and her as the Mother of God, primarily because the Divine Liturgies of the early Church had these in her prayers. That means that the faithful, who had no catechisms or a full set of the Holy Scriptures for that matter, believed these doctrines because they prayed them every Sunday at the Divine Liturgy. I can back this up by not only the Western Church of Rome, but by all of the sees of the ancient Church, which included Anticoch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople. I read in your debate with Brother John Mary of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and you made this statement, “So the question before us can be rather easily resolved: if you walked into a Church in the year 325, say, in Alexandria, would the people there hold the same views as modern Roman Catholics? Or would fundamental, definitional doctrines that separate Roman Catholicism from all other groups be utterly absent from the everyday faith, life, and teaching of the Nicene Church? If, in fact, we discover that the Church of Nicea did not hold to definitional doctrines that make Rome what it is today, then the debate is, for all practical purposes, over.” Here is my rebuttal, the Liturgy demonstrates that they did in fact believe and practice what we believe today in our Catholic Liturgy. The debate is not over. The doctrines are not absent from the ancient Church’s life and faith. They are absolutely present. When you walked into a Church back then you would have seen an altar. You would have had a presbyter presiding over the Liturgy. You would have prayed the prayers proclaiming the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. I am basing my rebuttal on the evidence of the Church in action within her liturgies. My last email was very focused on this subject. I am not fighting over what Augustine really meant in his writings or anyone else for that matter. My argument here doesn’t rely on any of the Church fathers or their writings. Their practice of faith is what matters, and they all, and I want to drive that point home, all went to the Divine Liturgies and participated in the prayers. I don’t think I can fit all of my examples in this email. I want to follow this up with my examples that substantiate my claims in another email. Mr. White, I would like to add that you present yourself as someone who takes great care to represent others and their positions accurately, and address their points with care. This is apparently absent with the fact that you completely dismissed the crux, and shall I dare say, the complete context of my email. This is the reason why I find difficulty with your assertion of reading the Church Fathers within context; for you have not done so with me, and the irony is that I am alive and can point that out to you. I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to dialogue with you.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, Michael Francis is one fast worker. he already has everything edited. Thanks…🙂
 
Good reply, but there’s more…may I ?

Mariologist Juniper Carol:

“The conviction of the writers relative to her holiness is founded, necessarily, in revealed truth which became more explicit with the passing of time. In denying that she herself had ever sinned, the Fathers placed her merit in a distinct class above the rest of human-kind, and no eulogy was too great to describe her, nor were any words adequate to convey the measure of her holiness. She was “most pure”; “inviolate”; “unstained”; “unspotted”; “blameless”; “entirely immune from sin”; “blessed above all”; “most innocent.” If she was free from sin without qualification, then why not also from original sin?” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, volume 1, page 348, and see all the evidence in these three volumes).

The Anglican historian JND Kelly (in Early Christian Doctrines) does refer to Origen, then Basil and John Chrysostom as doubting the sinlessness of Mary, but also notes that St. Ephraem in Syria did believe her “free from every stain, like her Son.” Let’s examine the fuller evidence from the Fathers and Doctors. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“But these Greek writers [who doubted Mary’s sinlessness] cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38,48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7,35,48; John 19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted.” (Catholic Encyclopedia [1913], on “Blessed Virgin Mary”)

Juniper Carol writes that “St. Augustine’s opinion is the real attitude of Christian antiquity.” What was Augustine’s view on the personal sinlessness of the Blessed Mother?

“Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin – after all, how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin – to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?” (St. Augustine, De natura et gratia PL 44:267, from Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 15)

As mentioned some of the Eastern theologians “appear to have spoken of imperfections in the Virgin, and even of positive faults” while the Fathers St. Ephraem (c. 310-378) and St. Epiphanius (c. 315-403) “seem to have escaped succumbing to the renowned authority of Origen” (Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 352) who first implied Mary had minor faults.

Subsequent Fathers and Saints in the East are clearer on the complete sinlessness of Mary: Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia (d. 430); St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 446); Hesychius of Jerusalem (d. 450); Basil of Seleucia (d. 458); St. James of Sarug (452-519), St. Anastasius I (d. 598); St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 637); St. Modestus (d. 634) another patriarch of Jerusalem; St. John Damascene (c. 675-749); St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 806); Joseph Hymnographus (d. 833); Georgius Nicomediensis (friend and contemporary of Photius); Euthymius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 917); Petrus, Bishop of Argo (d. 920); and on and on.

Among the Western theologians besides St. Augustine we have St. Ambrose of Milan (333-397) in the fourth century; (St. Hilary appears to be the lone exception in the West who had doubts); St. Peter Chrysologus in the fifth; St. Maximus of Turin (d. 470); Sedulius a writer of hymns; St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspa (d. 533); St. Venantius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poitiers (d. 609); St. Ildephonse of Toledo (d. 666); Ambrose Autpertus (d. 778); Paulus Warnefridus; Haymon, Bishop of Alberstadt (d. 853); Paschasius Radbertus (d. 860); St. Fulbert (d. 1028); then we have the controversy in the West leading to the solution by John Duns Scotus (1270-1308). That is a fuller picture of the historical evidence and development of the IC doctrine (see Carol Mariology, volume 1, pages 328ff).

The Immaculate Conception, the Bible, and the Church Fathers

Development of the Immaculate Conception

St. Augustine on the Eucharist

Hey White’s bookshelf looks like mine, except with dozens more anti-Catholic evangelical volumes, including virtually all of White’s books. :rolleyes: But I do recommend his Trinity book!

Phil P
 
While this is also great, what I find most intriguing, and what rightandreason is specifically getting at, is that the ancient liturgies is the faith and practice of the believing Church…regardless of how anyone interprets the fathers.
 
Here is the completion of my response.
The prayers of the Divine Liturgy. Part 4

I want to present several examples of the prayers of the ancient Christian Liturgy. Since you quoted Saint Augustine earlier on his supposed denial of the Real Presence, I want to look at the Liturgy that he attended. Saint Augustine was ordained by Saint Ambrose of Milan, in Milan at the Duomo. The Liturgy most likely used at the time was Saint Ambrose’s own liturgy. The Eucharistic prayer attributed to him reads as follows. “The priest speaks. Make for us.this oblation approved, ratified, reasonable, acceptable, seeing that that it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who the day before He suffered took bread in His holy hands, and looked up to heaven to you Holy Father almighty and everlasting God.” This closely resembles our Eucharistic prayer today. Either Augustine was suffering from severe multiple personality disorder, or he too believed in the liturgical prayer. Contrary to what many claim there are ancient manuscripts of liturgical prayers form the 4th century. In 362 we have Euchologion of Serapion, which contains Eucharistic, baptismal, ordination prayers, as well as prayers for the anointing of the sick. We also have Syrian testimonies from the 4th century as well. We have the liturgies of Saint Basil, Saint Chrysostom, Saint Mark, Saint Clement and Saint James which all reaffirm a belief in various Marion doctrines, as well as Eucharist beliefs by the prayers that they contain. In the prayer of oblation in the Liturgy of Saint Mark we read, “Calling to remembrance our most holy, most pure and blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us commit ourselves, and one another, and all our life unto Christ our God.” We have a belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity as well as the Mother of God. I will continue on another email, I am out of space.

Continued part 5.
Later the prayers proclaim the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence of Jesus. “O Master, Lord God almighty, Who sittest upon the Cherubim and art glorified by the Seraphim, Who didst prepare the heaven from the waters and didst adorn it with the choirs of the stars; Who hast arranged the bodiless ranks of Angels in the highest to sing Thy praise everlastingly: to Thee have we bowed the neck of our souls and bodies, showing the outward sign of service; and we pray Thee, disperse the dark attacks of sin from our thoughts; enlighten our mind with the Divine rays of Thy Holy Spirit, that being filled with the knowledge of Thee, we may worthily partake of the good Gifts set before us, the most pure Body and precious Blood of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, forgiving us every kind of sin, through Thy great and unsearchable goodness. Forgive us, O Lord God, our transgressions, whether intentional or unintentional, whether done knowingly or unknowingly.” This prayer cannot be clearer. In fact it is a profession of faith. You see we don’t have to have everything documented from the ancient times, because they were being lived and proclaimed in the Church’s life. This prayer of Saint Basil’s liturgy exemplifies what we as Catholics have always believed about the Real Presence of Christ. This is the prayer of the people. “People: Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the highest. Alleluia (3):The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him.” So we as Catholics believe also that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father, yet we eat of Him and yet we can never exhaust Him by eating Him. Since He is God He can of course be Present in both! I have one more email, please be patient.

Part 6 .I want to finish this rebuttal with this. These Litrugies can be traced back to the faith of the early Church. Saint Mark’s comes to us via Alexandria where the ancient Saints such as St. Athanasius the Great, and St. Cyrill of Alexandria proclaimed these Divine Truths in the 300s. By the way, Saint Athanasius was a Bishop at the Coucil of Nicea! Saint Chrysostom, and Basil can be attributed from the 4th century s well. The point is you cannot argue the fact that the ancient church was not the Catholic Church. It is evident by the Church’s practice in her Divine Liturgy. You can twist the writings of these Saints but you cannot twist the faith that they proclaimed in their Liturgies! They all believed in the Real Presence, they all believed Mary was immaculate, they all believed that she was the Mother of God and they all believed that she was ever virgin. I say this because they said it, and they prayed it!
 
Edit from my email. I typed that Augustine was ordained by Ambrose. That is incorrect, he was baptized by him in Milan. Please excuse my mistake.
 
Great reply, but re-format. Paragraphs, my man, paragraphs! 😃

Of course there is no ancient “Alpha and Omega Ministries Liturgy” so they may have an objection. :rolleyes: Their “biblical” objection is: "Throw out the ancient liturgies."

Of course we’d have to throw out the Bible, but they’d like to keep the Bible if they can (I think).

Phil P
 
Selections from the James White library:

http://www.bringyou.to/JWLibrary.jpg

“On the other hand, in a sense, Scripture is everything for the Fathers. Their writings, dogmatic, spiritual and pastoral, considered as a whole, are nothing but an extended commentary on Scripture, nor would they claim to be anything different. Scripture is everything for them – but they would also affirm that the tradition of the Church is everything: it is the totality of truth and even the totality of what is of value in culture, since it is the manifestation of the Wisdom of God…This is the Church, ecclesia. Tradition is constantly attributed to the apostles for its origin and to the Church as the subject which bears it. But what do we mean by ‘the Church’? …It [the Catholic Church of the Fathers] has a structure and a hierarchy but is completely living, active and responsible. The whole Church guards the apostolic tradition. The idea of tradition preceded that of apostolic succession, at least as explicitly and systematically formulated. But the idea that the ministers had authority to teach the faithful in continuity with the apostles is found, in one form or another, in all the ancient documents…the Catholics replied [to the Gnostics] by affirming the bond between the true tradition and the succession of legitimate ministers, bishops or presbyters, from the apostles…the Catholics replied with the idea of succession as the guarantee of authentic interpretation…”

“The whole of the foregoing discussion shows how the whole activity of the early Fathers tends to unite three terms which the disjunctions of the sixteenth century were to set up in opposition: Scripture, Tradition, Church. Tradition is an interpretation of Scripture, which was originally the Old Testament. There are many sects which propose their own interpretations; tradition, however, is that interpretation of Scripture which is the interpretation of the Church. Its criterion is the apostolicity of that Church, guaranteed by the succession of hierarchical ministers.”

“…it has always been affirmed that Scripture is the norm of our faith only when conjoined to the Church and her tradition…This tradition is said to be maintained by the succession of presbyters or bishops; so the apostolicity of the Church is not realized exclusively by Scripture.”

From Part I, Chapter 2 of Congar’s Tradition and Traditions on the ante-Nicene Fathers –

(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers – apostolic succession, not of doctrine only – but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles;

(B) The “rule of faith” or “rule of truth” was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of conduct, behavior, practice, on worship/liturgy, etc.

(C) The content of tradition consisted “materially” of the Scriptures, but “formally” of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;

(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;

(E) This Tradition – the Church’s Tradition – is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow “the order of tradition” received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;

(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;

(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not “succession of doctrine” only);

(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century – these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;

(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally “sufficient” or exclusive.

Phil P
 
Received: 21 Sep 2006 15:24:14
From: “Rich Pierce” of AOMIN.org
To: PhilVaz

“He [James White] would like to extend to you a challenge to back up your current brave words by coming on a special two hour edition of the Dividing Line to debate him on the doctrine of purgatory and the Bible. You would be given full rights to distribute the audio of the debate, and, of course, equal time would be provided. But there will be cross-examination as well, so we will see if you are as convinced of the answers you post on your website as you claim. Will you do this in December, January, or February?”

Martignoni, my good man, Martignoni. You don’t want me, you want him. The purgatory debate has already been done with Robert Sungenis back in 2000, shortly before their excellent May 2000 debate on Justification (and Fr. Stravinskas later in a formal debate). Order any of those through AOMIN.org or CatholicIntl.com

I would suggest another topic with Martignoni:

“RESOLVED: The Catholic Church of Nicaea is the Catholic Church of Rome” or similar agreed upon wording.
Martignoni: Affirm; White: Deny.

or

“RESOLVED: The Catholic Church of Nicaea is not the Catholic Church of Rome” or similar agreed upon wording.
White: Affirm; Martignoni: Deny.

Phil P
 
Here is James Whites weak response to my argument on the Divine Liturgy. Can anyone say weak! He makes a weak assumption that the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are not the same. Weak! I thought you had more in you James.
Here is what he sent me. I had to edit and put where he quoted Me and where he refuted, I put James.

Me

Hi James, thanks for responding to my email. I am sorry that you did not get my prior ones. I would like to fill in the gap if you don’t mind and explain the crux of my argument on my earlier emails. I
hope you will post this so people will know where I was coming from. As I noted in my last email I propose to argue against your statements on Mary and the early Church and also the Real Presence by the prayers of the Church’s Divine Liturgies.

James’ reply

Which involves the constant element of Roman Catholic argumentation, that of anachronism: taking concepts defined centuries later and reading them back into earlier documents/writings. Liturgical prayers are the most susceptible to such anachronistic reading, to be certain. The fact is that such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption were inarguably not a part of the faith of Nicea. And you seem to assume that “Real Presence” and “transubstantiation” are synonymous terms (they clearly are not). Until we are using the same terms and talking about the same things, nothing will be accomplished.

My statement

These Liturgies were used during the time of the Council of Nicea and throughout the history of the Church. We know that the early Church did not consist of catechisms floating around with all of the doctrines of the faith written in de facto. In fact the early councils, and every council actually in the history of the Church were held to address certain doctrines at that particular time. Indeed the Council of Nicea was not held to address Marian doctrine.

James

No one has argued otherwise, of course.

Me

This however does not mean that no one at that time did not believe any of the Marian doctrines or the doctrine of the Real Presence.

James

Matthew, why do you keep shifting the ground when I have already corrected this error? I did not say “any of the Marian doctrines” did I? Did I not correct this very issue in my blog articles? Yes, I did. So why try to sneak it back in?

Me

You used Saint Augustine’s writings as an argument against the Real Presence.

James

Goodness! If I so badly misread what Roman Catholics wrote I would be rightly dismissed, Matthew. I have NEVER said what you just said. Never. And if you were at all careful in your reading, you would know that. Matthew, “real presence” and “transubstantiation” are NOT the same things. OK? No person with the slightest intelligence would argue Augustine denied real presence. But he did not believe in transubstantiation. Just because you, in a modern context, equate the two terms does not mean that has been true going back in history, and that is the point. YOU need to prove otherwise, not just assume your position. This entire exchange proves you have not taken the time to seriously consider what anyone else has to say on this topic, and again, that only proves my point.

Me

First of all I never mentioned Augustine in my argument. What I can say is that Saint Augustine celebrated the Divine Liturgy, which explicitly has in its prayers the belief of Christ in the Real Presence. I will present these examples later. Either Saint Augustine was living a double life, celebrating and praying prayers proclaiming the Real Presence in the Liturgy, and then also writing against this belief in his writings, or you are misquoting him out of context. One of these has to be true.

James

Or, you are guilty of reading modern definitions into historical contexts that had no such meanings. Since you do not seem to understand these basic issues, I suggest that we are pretty much wasting our time here.

James>>>
The Gospel is ours to proclaim, not to edit.

What you win them with is what you win them to.
Jesus Christ: able to save to the uttermost <<<
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Me

Continued part two…My argument is that the Church did believe in the Real Presence, the Immaculate nature of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary and her as the Mother of God, primarily because the Divine Liturgies of the early Church had these in her prayers. That means that the faithful, who had no catechisms or a full set of the Holy Scriptures for that matter, believed these doctrines because they prayed them every Sunday at the Divine Liturgy.

James

Or, like those who read tremendous leaps of theology into short references by Irenaeus to Mary, you are reading into prayers (which are notoriously difficult to date, and easily changed or ‘developed’ by later generations) concepts that were never in the original setting.
 
He has more to come. He is replying to my other emails as well. I will post them later, and you the people can decide who is speaking the Truth. Have a good night.
 
The next response.

me

continued part four. The prayers of the Divine Liturgy. I want to present several examples of the prayers of the ancient Christian Liturgy. Since you quoted Saint Augustine earlier on his supposed denial of the Real Presence,

James

No, I quoted him relating to his belief that the physical body of Christ is in heaven and the church is deprived of it until He returns, and, I cited his comments on John 6 that indicated a non-physical interpretation. You are the one anachronistically connecting real presence and transubstantiation.

me

I want to look at the Liturgy that he attended. Saint Augustine was ordained by Saint Ambrose of Milan, in Milan at the Duomo. The Liturgy most likely used at the time was Saint Ambrose’s own liturgy. The Eucharistic prayers attributed to him reads as follows.

James

Attributed to him by later generations; further, this puts you, even at best, 60 years past Nicea.

Me

“The priest speaks. Make for us.this oblation approved, ratified, reasonable, acceptable, seeing that that it is the figure

James

ahemm, figure…

me

of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who the day before He suffered took bread in His holy hands, and looked up to heaven to you Holy Father almighty and everlasting God.†This closely resembles our Eucharistic prayer today.

James

More wonderful anachronism. So? Once again, this only proves how shallow and facile the claim to the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers really is.

Me

Either Augustine was suffering from severe multiple personality disorder, or he too believed in the liturgical prayer. Contrary to what many claim there are ancient manuscripts of liturgical prayers from the 4th century. In 362 we have Euchologion of Serapion, which contains Eucharistic, baptismal, ordination prayers, as well as prayers for the anointing of the sick.

James

All of which I point out is utterly irrelevant to my challenge, just so you realize that…
 
Me

Continued part 5. Later the prayers proclaim the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence of Jesus. “O Master, Lord God almighty, Who sittest upon the Cherubim and art glorified by the Seraphim, Who didst prepare the heaven from the waters and didst adorn it with the choirs of the stars; Who hast arranged the bodiless ranks of Angels in the highest to sing Thy praise everlastingly: to Thee have we bowed the neck of our souls and bodies, showing the outward sign of service; and we pray Thee, disperse the dark attacks of sin from our thoughts; enlighten our mind with the Divine rays of Thy Holy Spirit, that being filled with the knowledge of Thee, we may worthily partake of the good Gifts set before us, the most pure Body and precious Blood of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, forgiving us every kind of sin, through Thy great and unsearchable goodness. Forgive us, O Lord God, our transgressions, whether intentional or unintentional, whether done knowingly or unknowingly.†This prayer cannot be clearer. In fact it is a profession of faith.

James

Yes. Lutherans pray similar prayers. Many do without believing in transubstantiation. More anachronism.

Me

You see we don’t have to have everything documented from the ancient times, because they were being lived and proclaimed in the Church’s life. This prayer of Saint Basil’s liturgy exemplifies what we as Catholics have always believed about the Real Presence of Christ. This is the prayer of the people. People: Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the highest. Alleluia (3).(The Communion hymn changes according to the Feast Day.)(After the fraction of the sacred Bread, the Priest says in a low voice):The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him. So we as Catholics believe also that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father, yet we eat of Him and yet we can never exhaust Him by eating Him. Since He is God He can of course be Present in both! I have one more, be patient.

James

I’m sorry you invested so much time writing these e-mails when you are unaware of what you have to do to prove your point. If you had taken the time to do some reading or listening outside of your own communion, you would have known what the real issues are. Or, if you had bothered to read the relevant articles on my website you would not have made the same error. Don’t you see how this proves the point I’ve been making all this week?

James>>>
 
And the last one…Does he answer anything here?

Me

Part 6 .I want to finish this rebuttal with this. These Litrugies can be traced back to the faith of the early Church. Saint Mark’s comes to us via Alexandria where the ancient Saints such as St. Athanasius the Great, and St. Cyrill of Alexandria proclaimed these Divine Truths in the 300s. By the way, Saint Athanasius was a Bishop at the Coucil of Nicea!

James

No, actually, he was not. He was a deacon at Nicea. His bishop was Alexander.

Me

Saint Chrysostom, and Basil can be attributed from the 4th century s well. The point is you cannot argue the fact that the ancient church was not the Catholic Church. It is evident by the Church’s practice in her Divine Liturgy. You can twist the writings of these Saints but you cannot twist the faith that they proclaimed in their Liturgies! They all believed in the Real Presence, they all believed Mary was immaculate, they all believed that she was the Mother of God and they all believed that she was ever virgin. I say this because they said it, and they prayed it!

James

Now, as you have proven for me completely, you have your mind made up, however, you do not even know what the argument is! You can glibly accuse me of “twisting” things, when you have not proven a single error on my part, but have only demonstrated your own inability to engage in critical historical study! Matthew, believe me, I have been given tons of evidence this week of how rarely Roman Catholic controversialists actually engage in meaningful argumentation–I did not need more evidence, let alone six e-mails full. I do hope you will now finally take the time to find out how far down the road the real discussion has gone, maybe do some serious reading outside of your own apologists, and then try again someday. Thanks for writing.

James>>>
 
So, the jury is out. Thanks James for taking the time to respond to my emails. God bless…
 
Is that the best Dr.(unaccredited) White has for a response? Did he even respond to the Liturgical texts, or did he just attack your intelligence because you are not capable of using the ancient litugies as a rebuttal unless you have first read all of his (White’s) books, or interpret it anachronistically through the lens of John Calvin and his merry men (Luther).

Oh wait…Athanasius was a deacon during Nicea; therefore, rightandreason’s total argument is invalid.

It’s late on the east coast…I can’t wait to go through those emails tommorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top