The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[ddarko]

I asked for proof from the Ante-Nicene fathers that various Catholic beliefs are true. No one has been able to provide me with any. I looked over a bunch of links someone sent me, and most of the quotes are Post-Nicene. The ones which are Ante-Nicene don’t back the Catholic argument at all and have no business being in those links. I even found a quote in one of the links that exists no where else. It must have been doctored.

Instead of just going to some website and copying and pasting the work of other people, without even checking to see if they defend your arguments at all, why don’t you do some research yourselves. It’s the same thing John asked for, and you all still can’t provide any of it.

This site uses a lot of misinformation that backs nothing, but claims to back everything. Simply sending links from it prove nothing. Do some scholarship on your own, and don’t just send me worthless links.

scripturecatholic.com/index.html

How can anyone provide anything to you when you don’t seem to understand that a deductive conclusion posses the same Truth value as a proposition or axiom used to derive it?

Everyone here has provided you with propositions made by the fathers using Scripture and Tradition. But you just don’t want to take the extra step to see what the inevitable conclusion is from their ideas. You want them to spell it out for you because you think derived truths are lesser than the original truths. Thats is FALSE in terms of logic.

You want to stay at a = 1 and b = 2. The fact that the Catholic church has stated that c which is a+b is 3 does not sit well with you. Because none of the fathers said c = 3. Do you see how unreasonable your position is?

I am not sure how anyone can take to task to explain something to someone who wants to deny reason.

God Bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I asked for proof from the Ante-Nicene fathers that various Catholic beliefs are true.

1. Why have you limited this thread about the ECFs to just the ANFs? 2) what do you have against the Post-Nicene fathers when you readily accept Reformers writings? 3)why are your trying to derail this thread?

No one has been able to provide me with any.

I did you didn’t like the evidence, that’s fine I will leave you to that conclusion it’s not the topic of the thread anyway.

I looked over a bunch of links someone sent me, and most of the quotes are Post-Nicene.

So?

The ones which are Ante-Nicene don’t back the Catholic argument at all and have no business being in those links.

Says you. Again, baseless opinions with no proof. At least I offered ANFs writings, what have you offered in regards to the OP?

I even found a quote in one of the links that exists no where else. It must have been doctored.

As I showed you, your research was flawed and as such your conclusion was as well.

Instead of just going to some website and copying and pasting the work of other people, without even checking to see if they defend your arguments at all, why don’t you do some research yourselves. It’s the same thing John asked for, and you all still can’t provide any of it.

Well since you most likely are John I am not concerned with your opinion of my research. If you are unhappy with what I provided you start your own thread as this was not even the thread for it. Like I said, at least I offered you writings, what have you offered other than opinions?

God bless

 

[Prieldedi]

I’m now going to ask what I know will get me banned, because no one can answer it. One person tried to do it on here before, and the next thing you know someone on here says he was banned.

This is it:

1. Where in the ECF, or more specifically, as John1968 asked, where in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) do you find annulments?
2. Where in the ANF do you find indulgences?
3. Where in the ANF do you find Marian veneration?
4. Where in the ANF do you find graven images in churches?
5. Where in the ANF do you find interdicts?
6. Where in the ANF do you find Papal infallibility?
7. Where in the ANF do you find the Immaculate Conception?
8. Where in the ANF do you find prayers to angels and saints?
9. Where in the ANF do you find a canon of saints?
10. Where in the ANF do you find 7 sacraments listed as such?

This is the death blow to any Protestant who comes on here. I saw John’s posts and the moment he began to question these topics he got canned. Because the answer for all these is no where.

I would like to answer No. 3.

veneration: Profound respect or reverence. (Synonym: honor.)
honor: High respect, as that shown for special merit; esteem. Glory or recognition; distinction.

You find veneration for the Virgin Mary in the Bible.

Luke 1:28, «The angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”»

This is GOD speaking through a messenger, a supernatural messenger, an angel. This is not the word of the angel, it’s the word of GOD the Father. HE is the one calling Her “full of grace”, and HE tells Her through the angel 2 verses later that HE “has looked kindly on” Her. Do you see the profound respect shown by God Himself for this humble virgin? Five verses later the angel continues, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the holy child to be born shall be called Son of God.” Here are the three persons of the Holy Trinity together in the same sentence with “the handmaid of the Lord”: GOD the Father, GOD the Holy Spirit and GOD in the flesh, Jesus. Do you know of any other human being that has such a close relationship with the Holy Trinity? Is there anyone you can think of that can be closer to the Holy Trinity than the Blessed Virgin Mary? If you “respect” the Holy Trinity, why would you not “respect” the closest person to the Holy Trinity in God’s creation?

Luke 1:41-43, «When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leapt in her womb. Elizabeth was filled with holy spirit, and giving a loud cry, said, “You are most blessed among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb! How is it that the mother of my Lord comes to me?”»

Elizabeth shows respect for Mary in these passages, she calls Her “blessed” but we can also say that it’s GOD again greeting the Blessed Virgin Mary, but this time through a human messenger. Why do I say this? “ELIZABETH WAS FILLED WITH HOLY SPIRIT.” Again we see the union of this humble virgin with the Holy Trinity. Why would any of us demean Her when God is doing just the opposite?

Luke 11:28, «Jesus replied, “Surely blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it as well.”»

Jesus here is referring to His Mother, He (GOD in the flesh) calls her BLESSED because She has heard the word of GOD and She has kept it. Jesus knows this is true, He knows Her better than anyone. If calling Her BLESSED is not veneration, what is it? The Lord Himself is showing veneration for His own Mother. And you want us to go against what Jesus did? Aren’t we supposed to be like Him?

Now let me show you these verses:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY”. Matthew 24:35

“Heaven and earth will pass away, BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY”. Marc 13:31

“Heaven and earth will pass away, BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY.” Luke 21:33

My question to you is, where are the words of Jesus not recorded in the books of the New Testament? He said “MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY” so I assume you believe, like I do, that ALL of what He said and taught the Apostles is known today. Someone somewhere knows them, knows where they are. Where can we find His unrecorded words? They are the Word of God because they were spoken by Jesus, right? Where are they?

 

[Timothy_James]

I would like to answer No. 3.

veneration: Profound respect or reverence. (Synonym: honor.)
honor: High respect, as that shown for special merit; esteem. Glory or recognition; distinction.

You find veneration for the Virgin Mary in the Bible.

I asked for Marian veneration in the ANF. But I guess the Bible is okay. In the Bible you see a good woman, praised by many. But in the Bible other people are praised too. No where in the Bible are there statues to Mary, and people praying to Mary after she’s dead. If there are any references to intercession in the Bible it’s when living people pray for others. Not after they’re dead.

You post good quotes, but none of them show people praying to Mary after she’s dead. Or making statues of her and praying before them in church. Or singing the kind of praises to her that only God should receive. My dad has an old prayer book at home from his Catholic days. I believe in this prayer book is a short indulgenced prayer which simply goes like this: “Mary, our salvation…” Something like that. But the term our salvation is in there. Yet in the Bible its Jesus and God who are our salvation, not Mary.

 

[Timothy_James]

1. Why have you limited this thread about the ECFs to just the ANFs? 2) what do you have against the Post-Nicene fathers when you readily accept Reformers writings? 3)why are your trying to derail this thread?

I did you didn’t like the evidence, that’s fine I will leave you to that conclusion it’s not the topic of the thread anyway.

The evidence you provided doesn’t back your argument. No where in your first link is there a reference to annulments, yet you post it as your proof. And the other two links which I replied to didn’t prove your argument either. The first quote had nothing to do with Mary, even though it’s presented that way. The second quote doesn’t exist, and the rest of the quote are post-nicene. You didn’t do anything with your links. Nothing. You didn’t prove anything.

And you ask why I don’t deal with post-nicene. The same reason John didn’t, the same reason many Protestants don’t. Because by the 4th century you are already reading people who are separated from Jesus and the Apostles by 3 centuries. 3 hundred years. Can you imagine that? That’s like looking at material today that was written in 1711, and saying that we have no differences today from the people who lived back then.

By the 4th century, bishops are definitely a separate office from elders. Elders are referred to as priests. The monarchial system of bishoprics is already in effect. People are praying to saints by their tombs. The confessional has already been developed. Etc. By the 4th century you already have a theologically evolved church, separate from the simple institution that was created in the first century. If I was to take your argument to it’s fullest conclusion, they why stop with the post-nicene fathers? Why not just go up to the modern day and the modern papacy?

I accept the Protestant Reformers because they were all about the Bible, and not man made traditions. Can’t you understand that? They came 1500 years after Jesus, but everything they did was based on the Bible. While the RCC didn’t base everything on the Bible. They made up new beliefs over the many centuries, and then claimed these beliefs existed in the beginning.

The more time that elapses from the first century, the more things change. Every organization evolves over time. Unless something is put in their to stop the evolution, like Sola Scriptura. Look how much the United States has evolved in just 200 years.
To a large degree even Protestant churches have tradition and have evolved. I’m sure the Baptist church of today is different from that Baptist church of 1711. But what the Baptist church, and other Protestants, did to stop the evolution is focus on the Bible alone. If it’s not in this 2,000 year old document, we don’t do it, nor do we believe it. That’s not the same with the RCC. In the RCC there is constant change and evolution. My grandfather, who died a Catholic, used to criticize how much the RCC changed in his lifetime. There used to be a time when you could not go to communion without confession. There was a time when you had to kneel to receive communion. If you didn’t the priest would not give it to you. And now you can even take it in your hands. In the old days only a priest could hand out communion, now a layperson is allowed. So many changes occurred in just the 20th century, and you think there were no changes over the first 400 years?

 

[cfrancis]

Tim, very happy to see you stuck around! Look, you need to start other threads for these other topcs; you’ll have plenty of interest!
WRT this topic, do you have any proof from the ECFs for sola Scriptura?

 

[Timothy_James]

Says you. Again, baseless opinions with no proof. At least I offered ANFs writings, what have you offered in regards to the OP?

But your ANF quotes don’t show what you are trying to prove. They sometimes don’t even refer to the same topic. Why quote someone to prove something, when that person’s quote has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove? At least you offered ANF writings, but your quotes point in the other direction.

 

[Timothy_James]

How can anyone provide anything to you when you don’t seem to understand that a deductive conclusion posses the same Truth value as a proposition or axiom used to derive it?

Are you so blind? The quotes people are posting have nothing to do with what they are trying to prove. They’re empty quotes. Sure I can post a whole bunch of quotes which don’t prove anything I’m trying to say. That’s ridiculous. If your quote doesn’t defend your argument, who do you include it? All the Bible quotes you all have posted don’t prove what you’re so desperately trying to prove. They day say what you are saying. The same with the ANF quotes. One of the ANF quotes didn’t even refer to Mary, yet it was included as a defense for her immaculate conception. Can you get any more ridiculous?

I’ve explained my reasons for ANF only. So did John. And so do many other Protestants. But our explanations fall on deaf ears, because you need post-nicene quotes to prove your points, even though those come from a time over 300 years after the time of Jesus. Imagine, 300 years elapses, and you use a quote 300 years late to prove something that never existed on day one. But that means nothing to you guys because like I said, you have to use common sense.

To come to the conclusions you all do you need a convoluted argument that rationalizes the fact that centuries elapse before such beliefs come about.The Christian faith is not a mysterious detective case, where you need Sherlock Holmes to figure it out centuries later. It’s not a cold case. God gave it to the human race in a very clear package. But your leaders invent new beliefs and your trying to say they had to because you seem to think that God didn’t tell us everything, so you need Pope Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. And once these popes figure it out they give themselves the infallible power to declare it a dogma, and then have the gall to say that it’s a belief which the church has always held.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The evidence you provided doesn’t back your argument. No where in your first link is there a reference to annulments, yet you post it as your proof.

One thing Again, I supplied it to show that the ECFs had a very Catholic understanding of marriage and divorce.

The second quote doesn’t exist, and the rest of the quote are post-nicene. You didn’t do anything with your links. Nothing. You didn’t prove anything.

No Tim as I explained, do more research. There are far more works written by Origen than the 8 you think. He wrote hundreds of Homilies. BTW you haven’t even attempted to prove anything. Just like John you have derailed this thread so the you wouldn’t have to answer the OP. So again, where is your proof?

And you ask why I don’t deal with post-nicene. The same reason John didn’t, the same reason many Protestants don’t.

That’s fine but the OP made no such criteria. You are afraid to deal with them so you make up this criteria.

Because by the 4th century you are already reading people who are separated from Jesus and the Apostles by 3 centuries.

I accept the Protestant Reformers because they were all about the Bible, and not man made traditions.

You have such rose colored glasses. Is it any coincidence that John did as well. So Luther wrote about batpismal regeneration, infant baptism and the Real Presence just to name a few… Howe does the Baptist Convention accept those truths?

Can’t you understand that? They came 1500 years after Jesus, but everything they did was based on the Bible.

Really? Everything eh? From Luther’s small catechism:

Secondly.

What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.

**It works forgiveness of sins, **delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Or what about what the reformers taught about Mary

Martin Luther:

“She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God … It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…”

Calvin:

“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.”

Zwingli:

“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”

Do you want to try again Tim?

They made up new beliefs over the many centuries, and then claimed these beliefs existed in the beginning.

Getting back to the OP, where do we fine SS among the ANF. Can we stop with your rants and derailing of this thread and can you actually answer the question? If the ECF’s taught this I want to know. Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The more time that elapses from the first century, the more things change.

Excepts if they were the reformers

Answer some questions Tim, take your off topic rants to your own thread. Where is SS among the ANFs.

BTW, I knew you’d be back

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

But your ANF quotes don’t show what you are trying to prove. They sometimes don’t even refer to the same topic. Why quote someone to prove something, when that person’s quote has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove? At least you offered ANF writings, but your quotes point in the other direction.

Read them again, then if you have more questions, open a thread. Stop derailing this one. Show us proof for your belief that the ECF’s were SS adherents.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Are you so blind? The quotes people are posting have nothing to do with what they are trying to prove.

Sigh, we get it Tim you won’t accept anything we post that’s fine, your questions arn’t on topic anyways. So can we get to the topic? We grant that you arn’t buying what we are posting. We concede that. Now get to the topic, where is SS among the ECFs?

I’ve explained my reasons for ANF only. So did John.

You = John it’s pretty easy to see Tim. You guys have used the same arguments and even the same insults I have never seen another poster reference a different poster so much in their posts. The game’s up Tim, now get to the topic since you weren’t able to as John.

Stop stalling, stop throwing mud. Prove what have only thus far been opinions.

God bless

 

[Timothy_James]

**Papal infallibility: **

The dogma of papal infallibility didn’t become a dogma till 1870. And it states that when the pope speaks from the chair (Ex Cathedra), his declaration is infallible. Up to that point the only infallible statements were made by church councils, made up of many bishops voting on the matters at hand. But once the church created this dogma church historians went back in time to try to say that these ex cathedra, infallible statements, have occurred before. To they spin doctor a historical event and say that it was an infallible statement. Not one of these supposed infallible statements was made by Peter. Not one. The RCC claims that the first time something like this occurred was in 449 AD (over 400 years after the time of Jesus), and well after Nicea and Constantine. And it was during a church council. The first supposed infallible statement that was not made at a church council was supposedly in 1336, 1300 years after the time of Jesus.

Have you ever heard of eisegesis? You first create a doctrine, then you try to say that it exists in the Bible, and so you look through the Bible and try to skew the Bible to make your doctrine fit. Same thing here. The RCC invented papal infallibility and then when back into history and tried to revise history by saying it occurred as some time in the past, when even the people who lived back then didn’t know or believe the theory of papal infallibility. Revisionist history is nothing more than a lie.

 

[LionHeart777]

Greetings Tim,

Besides S.S. in the ANF’s, where is the teaching of “eternal security” found in the ANF’s?

Also, just off of the top of my head about all the things you requested proof for in the ANF’s, I’ll provide just a couple and trust that the rest of the posters will take care of the rest if the conversation goes that way.

The Monarchical bishop: St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp (in an indirect manner) are two solid early witnesses:

examiner.com/catholic-in-detroit/in-defense-of-the-monarchical-bishop-two-early-witnesses-part-2-of-2

On the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin:

St. Ephraim should suffice since St. Ambrose is not a ANF.

‘You alone and your Mother
are more beautiful than any others;
For there is no blemish in you,
nor any stains upon your Mother.
Who of my children
can compare in beauty to these?’ [2]

(examiner.com/catholic-in-detroit/some-follow-up-on-the-white-ferrara-debate)

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

**Papal infallibility: **

The dogma of papal infallibility didn’t become a dogma till 1870. And it states that when the pope speaks from the chair (Ex Cathedra), his declaration is infallible. Up to that point the only infallible statements were made by church councils, made up of many bishops voting on the matters at hand. But once the church created this dogma church historians went back in time to try to say that these ex cathedra, infallible statements, have occurred before. To they spin doctor a historical event and say that it was an infallible statement. Not one of these supposed infallible statements was made by Peter. Not one. The RCC claims that the first time something like this occurred was in 449 AD (over 400 years after the time of Jesus), and well after Nicea and Constantine. And it was during a church council. The first supposed infallible statement that was not made at a church council was supposedly in 1336, 1300 years after the time of Jesus.

Have you ever heard of eisegesis? You first create a doctrine, then you try to say that it exists in the Bible, and so you look through the Bible and try to skew the Bible to make your doctrine fit. Same thing here. The RCC invented papal infallibility and then when back into history and tried to revise history by saying it occurred as some time in the past, when even the people who lived back then didn’t know or believe the theory of papal infallibility. Revisionist history is nothing more than a lie.

Off topic Tim, take it somewhere else. Where is SS among the ANFs?

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

Where is SS among the ECFs?

God bless

 

[Timothy_James]

Everyone here has provided you with propositions made by the fathers using Scripture and Tradition. But you just don’t want to take the extra step to see what the inevitable conclusion is from their ideas. You want them to spell it out for you because you think derived truths are lesser than the original truths. Thats is FALSE in terms of logic.

You are wrong ddarko. I have taken plenty of extra steps to check out the inevitable conclusion from their ideas. I looked through every single book written by Origen to find a quote, and it doesn’t exist. Please find it and tell me where it is. Also, another quote I proved has nothing to even do with Mary and her supposed immaculate conception and veneration. I am not doing anything FALSE. You are just providing me with non-sense. You are trying to doctor up false proofs that often have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You said, "You want them to spell it out for you because you think derived truths are lesser than the original truths."

If by derived truths you mean false doctrines invented many centuries later, then I guess your right. You’ve admitted that your “derived truths” is not the same as “original truth”. But they are not. There is one truth, and it is unchanging. God has given us his revelation. We are not supposed to add to God’s word by adding your “derived truths” to what God has told us. All over the Bible it says not to add to the word of God. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing that. But you are doing the same thing, and you even have the gall to call it “derived truths”. That’s a made up theological construct for man made traditions. It proves you are FALSE. I don’t know how you understand the term logic, but you are trying to say that myths invented centuries later have some kind of bearing on historical events that occurred 2,000 years ago. I’ve never heard of such silly ideas being referred to as logic. If something didn’t happen, and it’s not recorded as happening, then making a papal declaration over 1800 years later, declaring that it did happen, won’t make the myth happen in the past. The past is the past, we can’t change historical events by making supposedly infallible statements about it. If two hundred years from now the pope infallibly declares that the confederacy won the civil war in America, that won’t change what really happened in history. There is no proof that Mary had an Immaculate Conception. Using archeological terminology, it’s not in the fossil record. Twisting the words contained in the Gospel of Luke won’t change the past.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You want to stay at a = 1 and b = 2. The fact that the Catholic church has stated that c which is a+b is 3 does not sit well with you. Because none of the fathers said c = 3. Do you see how unreasonable your position is?

I am not sure how anyone can take to task to explain something to someone who wants to deny reason.

God Bless

This is very good. I would add one thing to your analogy as well. To John and Tim since the ANFs don’t spell out word for word ‘c’ that must mean that ‘d’ is correct, which of course is faulty logic.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You are wrong ddarko.

Prove it. Stop telling us and show us. All you’ve offered is opinions.

I have taken plenty of extra steps to check out the inevitable conclusion from their ideas. I looked through every single book written by Origen to find a quote, and it doesn’t exist.

Impossible Tim, you looked through all of his thousands of books over the course of a couple hours? I already showed you that he had more than the 8 works you referenced.

Stop going off topic, where is SS among the ANFs? Specifically your definition of it since your definition is not the Reformation doctrine and is a very modern definition.

God bless

 

[cfrancis]

Because by the 4th century you are already reading people who are separated from Jesus and the Apostles by 3 centuries. 3 hundred years. Can you imagine that? That’s like looking at material today that was written in 1711, and saying that we have no differences today from the people who lived back then.

If I was to take your argument to it’s fullest conclusion, they why stop with the post-nicene fathers? Why not just go up to the modern day and the modern papacy?

They came 1500 years after Jesus,

The more time that elapses from the first century, the more things change.

Not ony are you contradictory, but you still have not provided the proof for your position

 

[Timothy_James]

**False Quote posted. Please don’t use hoaxes. **

I spent a lot of time last night looking for this quote: “This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244)."

It was mentioned in at least two posts as proof of the immaculate conception of Mary. I looked through every single book by Origen which is in existence and I could not find this quote anywhere. And there isn’t even a book by Origen which is just titled “Homily”. Usually, it’s Homilies on Luke, or something like that. Since this quote was presented as proof that the ANF venerated Mary and considered her to be immaculate, I ask once again that someone show me where this quote is from, cite the location in Origen’s writings. If it does exist I will look up what the whole thing says. But as far as I know this is a hoax.

ddarko, was it you who said that I don’t look up things? I spent quite a lot of time looking for this. I doesn’t exist. If it does I wish to read more than just this little sentence.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It was mentioned in at least two posts as proof of the immaculate conception of Mary. I looked through every single book by Origen which is in existence and I could not find this quote anywhere.

We’ve discussed this, the 8 books you referenced are not all of his works. He wrote thousands of works and hundreds of homilies. Reject it, that’s fine it’s off topic anyways. Where is SS among the ANFs?

ddarko, was it you who said that I don’t look up things? I spent quite a lot of time looking for this. I doesn’t exist. If it does I wish to read more than just this little sentence.

A lot of time? You’re not being truthful. In the thread in question (found here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=214443) you wondered at 9:34 if they were fake, then 17 minutes later, at 9:51, said that you thought they were because you had found, what you thought were, all of his works at newadvent. Setting aside that newadvent did not list all of his works, you spent 17 minutes on it…

Get back on topic John, where is SS in the ANFs?

God bless