One Fold blog accuses Catholics of quote mining Early Church

[DustinQuick]

Hi guys,

Just wondering if anyone’s seen or heard of this blog before. It makes some pretty bold claims about the early church, and seriously questions Catholic views and those of Catholic apologists. Does anyone know if responses have been written to this blog specifically?

Peace and thanks,

onefold.wordpress.com/

 

[Contarini]

Hi guys,

Just wondering if anyone’s seen or heard of this blog before. It makes some pretty bold claims about the early church, and seriously questions Catholic views and those of Catholic apologists. Does anyone know if responses have been written to this blog specifically?

Peace and thanks,

onefold.wordpress.com/

Well, Catholic apologists do “quote-mine,” and it’s maddening. I don’t think this is an “accusation” so much as pointing out an obvious fact, evident to anyone who reads a Catholic Answers tract.

That being said, the blog’s argument about Irenaeus (just to take the example I looked at in a few minutes of browsing the site) isn’t convincing. Irenaeus is pretty clearly talking about Rome as preeminent precisely because of its apostolic heritage.

The point about John 6 is more valid. I’ve never been convinced by the “people walked away because they rejected the Real Presence” argument.

Edwin

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, Catholic apologists do “quote-mine,” and it’s maddening. I don’t think this is an “accusation” so much as pointing out an obvious fact, evident to anyone who reads a Catholic Answers tract.

Evidence is evidence and what would be the point of including the whole document?

The point about John 6 is more valid. I’ve never been convinced by the “people walked away because they rejected the Real Presence” argument.

Edwin

In that case Edwin why does John 6 say the following things?

• [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

[60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? **
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[64] ** But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66] **After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. ***

 

[DustinQuick]

I think, in some sense, everybody “quote mines” to a certain extent, regardless of one’s tradition - heck, you pretty much “have to”; no one has time to reproduce (or read) entire tomes just to lend reasonable support to a particular point every single time one is raised. That would be absurd both to undertake/produce and to process, particularly in today’s fast paced world.

So I don’t think that in and of itself is problematic, for the sake of brevity. But where it is problematic, is when the mined quotes literally rip them out of their appropriate or reasonable immediate or wider context, and do violence and injustice to the intended meaning. That “is” wrong and deceptive.

In the case of something like the eucharist and the real presence, one need not worry about this; for over a millennium, the church universal believed in the real presence - so abridged quotes for convenience and time’s sake only bear witness to a larger, wider, unbroken, organic tradition within the life of the church, beginning with the apostolic age, into the sub-apostolic age, with the successors of the apostles. Coupled with the fact that Christians de facto rejected heresy/novelty, I’d say the author’s attempt to cast any doubt on the real presence, is rather weak; understandable, given his tradition, but weak.

Peace and love, all.

 

[DustinQuick]

Please allow me to share a Facebook post from earlier today; I hope you guys find it edifying - it sure was for me. The talks are long but well-worth it!

In this enlightening talk, and Q&A, Dr. Feingold shows how, from the Apostolic (seen in the Didache), and immediately following, the sub-apostolic periods, the universal (catholic) church, for over one millennium, believed in:

1. The real presence of the glorified Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity - under the appearance (i.e., properties) of bread and wine in the Eucharist.
2. The Eucharist as a pure, true sacrifice, and the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 1, about the Gentiles/nations offering God a pure oblation/sacrifice, from east to west. This was the faith of the Church even in the apostolic period, as seen from the Didache, the earliest “catechism” we have outside the New Testament dealing with instruction and liturgical worship. Not that Christ is re-sacrificed, or re-crucified, but the once-for-all sacrifice of Calvary, is made truly and really present - re-presented - as the center of the Christian life, by which God gives us grace to grow in sanctification.

hebrewcatholic.net/05-10-early-church-fathers-on-the-eucharist-and-the-liturgy/

God bless,

Dustin

 

[MrSnaith]

Hi guys,

Just wondering if anyone’s seen or heard of this blog before. It makes some pretty bold claims about the early church, and seriously questions Catholic views and those of Catholic apologists. Does anyone know if responses have been written to this blog specifically?

Peace and thanks,

onefold.wordpress.com/

Personally, I always found the argument that “He let them walk away without clarifying” to be relatively weak, though not altogether without merit.

I rather prefer the thematic argument of Jesus as the Lamb of Passover, which can be found in John. Also, the quote “the flesh profits nothing” is often “quote mined” by protestants, and it is itself taken out of context. John talks a lot about the flesh in his Gospel. If Jesus is the Word who became flesh, and if He had to die in the flesh, then “the flesh profits nothing” cannot be taken strictly at face value, otherwise all the rest of the Gospel might be thrown out like the baby and the bath water.

Jesus tells us that His words are spirit and life. Well, He is the Word made flesh. So consuming His flesh is consuming the Word, who is spirit and life. It’s just logical.

 

[DustinQuick]

Personally, I always found the argument that “He let them walk away without clarifying” to be relatively weak, though not altogether without merit.

I rather prefer the thematic argument of Jesus as the Lamb of Passover, which can be found in John. Also, the quote “the flesh profits nothing” is often “quote mined” by protestants, and it is itself taken out of context. John talks a lot about the flesh in his Gospel. If Jesus is the Word who became flesh, and if He had to die in the flesh, then “the flesh profits nothing” cannot be taken strictly at face value, otherwise all the rest of the Gospel might be thrown out like the baby and the bath water.

Jesus tells us that His words are spirit and life. Well, He is the Word made flesh. So consuming His flesh is consuming the Word, who is spirit and life. It’s just logical.

Amen. Well said.

 

[Elizium23]

I do have to ask: what does it matter what one random guy’s blog says anyway?

It seems to me he’s just spitting into the wind and can be quite safely ignored.

 

[DustinQuick]

Well, Catholic apologists do “quote-mine,” and it’s maddening. I don’t think this is an “accusation” so much as pointing out an obvious fact, evident to anyone who reads a Catholic Answers tract.

That being said, the blog’s argument about Irenaeus (just to take the example I looked at in a few minutes of browsing the site) isn’t convincing. Irenaeus is pretty clearly talking about Rome as preeminent precisely because of its apostolic heritage.

The point about John 6 is more valid. I’ve never been convinced by the “people walked away because they rejected the Real Presence” argument.

Edwin

I appreciate Edwin’s thoughts and time, as well. Thanks, Edwin. I “hope” I did justice to, and added some balanced, nuanced perspective on, the quote-mining charge, by the grace of God. Of course, I have blind-spots. Praise God: the members of His body are here to sharpen and build each other up.

 

[DustinQuick]

I do have to ask: what does it matter what one random guy’s blog says anyway?

It seems to me he’s just spitting into the wind and can be quite safely ignored.

It was one of the sources that bothered me during the conversion process. I’m thankful for it, though, because it made me dig deeper and pray harder. Romans 8:28.

 

[steve_b]

The point about John 6 is more valid. I’ve never been convinced by the “people walked away because they rejected the Real Presence” argument.

Edwin

Just curious, what is your argument then, for them walking away saying “this is a hard saying, who could listen to it” ?

 

[DustinQuick]

Well, Catholic apologists do “quote-mine,” and it’s maddening. I don’t think this is an “accusation” so much as pointing out an obvious fact, evident to anyone who reads a Catholic Answers tract.

That being said, the blog’s argument about Irenaeus (just to take the example I looked at in a few minutes of browsing the site) isn’t convincing. Irenaeus is pretty clearly talking about Rome as preeminent precisely because of its apostolic heritage.

The point about John 6 is more valid. I’ve never been convinced by the “people walked away because they rejected the Real Presence” argument.

Edwin

If I could just add, Edwin, as an example of quote-mining in the negative sense, you highlight Catholic Answers tracts. I hear what you’re saying; however, a tract by definition, is just that: a tract. There is only so much information one can include in such a medium, before it ceases to become a tract, and morphs into something else of a longer variety. Thus, when people pick up - or click on - a tract, and end up with something a lot more dense, that, in itself, “could” be misleading and disingenuous on the part of the publisher(s). In fact, if there’s any place where these types of quotes would be acceptable, it would be a publication such as a tract - the very thing you’ve painted in the negative in the context of quote mining.

A tract should not be, it is not, the be-all-end-all; rather, it should open the door for further, more in depth study on the part of the researcher. They can then move beyond the tract format and the quotes contained therein. And I’ve never seen a Catholic, either theologian or layperson, up to this point, warn people of going too deep into Church history, outside the confines of their mined quotes, lest they find the “truth” that the Catholic Church really can’t be the Church of Christ. The Church has nothing to hide, and isn’t relegated to selective quoting; She consistently encourages all to look into all of Church history as deep as they can. That is a pretty powerful witness.

So I don’t think indicting Catholic Answers tracts really strengthens your case. But I do agree with your general premise, in certain context(s), across traditions, as I stated earlier.

Peace brother.

 

[Share_love]

The point about John 6 is more valid. I’ve never been convinced by the “people walked away because they rejected the Real Presence” argument.

Edwin

Perhaps you’ll find this more persuasive: youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

It’s in Spanish, but there are English subtitles.

 

[TimothyH]

We are not supposed to link to anti-Catholic websites.

This is the most visited Catholic website on the planet. Many people interested in the Catholic faith might click on that link and be persuaded that the website is correct and that Catholics are wrong.

I would hope that people would think twice before posting links to anti-Catholic websites.

-Tim-

 

[DustinQuick]

Tim,

Do you think I had foreknowledge of this, and went ahead, with malice, and posted it anyway, to ruffle feathers and start scandal?

Or, do you think that being a new forum member - and a new convert, who has fought “apologetics” issues with blood, sweat, and tears to enter the Church - I genuinely wasn’t aware that I wasn’t supposed to link to such a site, with the sole purpose of discussing Catholic apologetic issues (which we’ve all done with no problem up until your reply)?

I pray you’d give me the benefit of the doubt, brother.

Sorry if I violated any rules; if mods feel this thread is out of line, then please delete it.

Peace and blessings.

 

[DustinQuick]

It’s the most visited anti-Catholic site on the planet? Funny, I believed the Vatican was hell’s HQ, and the illuminati sacrificed babies to lucifer in the catacombs - I hated Catholicism - and I never once heard of this site. It’s news to me.

 

[Contarini]

Evidence is evidence and what would be the point of including the whole document?

Because that would show the context. Obviously I’m not saying they should include the whole document. But the intellectually serious way of making a patristic argument is to say “in X treatise by Y, Y says the following, arguing this against this particular opponent in the context of this particular controversy. Linked up with these other similar statements in these other contexts, this proves the following. These other passages which some argue prove the contrary really don’t for these reasons, or else they constitute a minority tradition and don’t overturn the fact that the consensus of the Fathers as a whole is on our side.” Or something along those lines.

In that case Edwin why does John 6 say the following things?

Obviously they were freaked out by the “cannibalistic” language. No dispute about that. But it’s absurd to suggest that they understood anything like the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence and rejected it. The primary meaning of this whole passage seems to be that they wanted regular food, doles like the kind the emperor gave out (they had just tried to make him king) and didn’t have any time for nonsense about Jesus being the real food. None of this, per se, helps us determine what “eating Jesus” meant. The argument that Jesus wouldn’t have let them walk away based on a misunderstanding is an incredible one–incredible as in it’s hard for me to see how anyone who had read the Gospels could make it or take it seriously. In the Synoptics, Jesus explicitly announces his intention of speaking cryptically so that people will misunderstand, and the Johannine Jesus , while more explicit in many ways, is if anything even more fond of mysterious, symbolic ways of speaking.

I believe in the Real Presence. I even believe that John 6 is talking about the Real Presence, though I don’t think John by itself would support a strong doctrine of the Presence.

But I don’t believe

1. That the Catholic doctrine could be reasonably called “literal” in the first place, and
2. That Jesus let the people walk away because they had rightly understood him to be speaking “literally,” so that their rejection of Jesus was based in a knowing rejection of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. That’s just a nonsensical argument.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If I could just add, Edwin, as an example of quote-mining in the negative sense, you highlight Catholic Answers tracts. I hear what you’re saying; however, a tract by definition, is just that: a tract. There is only so much information one can include in such a medium, before it ceases to become a tract, and morphs into something else of a longer variety. Thus, when people pick up - or click on - a tract, and end up with something a lot more dense, that, in itself, “could” be misleading and disingenuous on the part of the publisher(s). In fact, if there’s any place where these types of quotes would be acceptable, it would be a publication such as a tract - the very thing you’ve painted in the negative in the context of quote mining.

A tract should not be, it is not, the be-all-end-all; rather, it should open the door for further, more in depth study on the part of the researcher. They can then move beyond the tract format and the quotes contained therein. And I’ve never seen a Catholic, either theologian or layperson, up to this point, warn people of going too deep into Church history, outside the confines of their mined quotes, lest they find the “truth” that the Catholic Church really can’t be the Church of Christ. The Church has nothing to hide, and isn’t relegated to selective quoting; She consistently encourages all to look into all of Church history as deep as they can. That is a pretty powerful witness.

So I don’t think indicting Catholic Answers tracts really strengthens your case. But I do agree with your general premise, in certain context(s), across traditions, as I stated earlier.

Peace brother.

I don’t think the Church has anything to hide. I think that apologists, while rarely deliberately dishonest, routinely oversimplify and distort the evidence in the interests of a neat, clean argument. History is messy. Ancient texts are hard to interpret. (That is, after all, one of the strong arguments against sola scriptura, at least in its more simplistic modern American form.)

It would be quite possible to have tracts that laid out actual arguments instead of just quote-mining. In the same space, instead of having 100 texts with no context, you could have ten texts with actual discussion and analysis.

I pick on Catholic Answers because it is perhaps the most prominent Catholic apologetics organization, so if someone is accusing Catholics of “quote-mining” it makes sense to bring up CA, since CA does in fact engage in this practice.

Edwin

 

[DustinQuick]

I don’t think the Church has anything to hide. I think that apologists, while rarely deliberately dishonest, routinely oversimplify and distort the evidence in the interests of a neat, clean argument. History is messy. Ancient texts are hard to interpret. (That is, after all, one of the strong arguments against sola scriptura, at least in its more simplistic modern American form.)

It would be quite possible to have tracts that laid out actual arguments instead of just quote-mining. In the same space, instead of having 100 texts with no context, you could have ten texts with actual discussion and analysis.

I pick on Catholic Answers because it is perhaps the most prominent Catholic apologetics organization, so if someone is accusing Catholics of “quote-mining” it makes sense to bring up CA, since CA does in fact engage in this practice.

Edwin

Understood.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #17
That Jesus let the people walk away because they had rightly understood him to be speaking “literally,” so that their rejection of Jesus was based in a knowing rejection of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. That’s just a nonsensical argument.

Hardly, as they understood what He meant in what he was saying, and He had not yet formed His Church headed by St Peter with the Apostles.

The clarity and directness of Christ – “This IS My Body” at the Last Supper after carefully teaching in Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh," gives the lie to these foolish distortions.

1. When Jesus said He was the gate and we were the sheep, we know that we are not literally sheep.
2. When He said he was the living water, we know that we do not have literal springs of water welling up within us.
   But there is no such metaphor identifier in John 6.

Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.

Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

So the gift of Jesus of Himself to us as God, which He promised and fulfilled just as He promised to build His Church on Peter and fulfilled, is a reality which we have to face up to and accept with that love and gratitude which such a tremendous fact asks of us – with the resolve to follow Him as He has asked of us.

The Sacred Scriptures accurately describe the reality.
Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to them, saying: “This is My Body, which will be given up for you.” (Lk 22: part 19). After they had eaten, He took the cup and said: “This cup is the new covenant In My Blood, which will be shed for you.” (v 20). [Transubstantiation]. “Do this in memory of Me.” (v 19). Transubstantiation is the term developed to describe the miraculous transformation which Christ instituted and commanded be perpetuated until the end of time as His unique means of spiritual sustenance, as He established the priesthood to be victims with Himself.

Some pick and choose whatever suits their fancy.