Who is Giles?

[carlos19]

totally unrelated but what is that language on your tag line and what does it say?

 

[carlos19]

it seems like vietnamese but not quite…

 

[Montalban]

it seems like vietnamese but not quite…

Yikes!

It’s Scots-Gaelic.

It says

Hail Mary, full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee

Gaelic is a horrid language

A name like Moire changes spelling depending on case. When talking to, or about Mary, it gets ‘aspirated’ or softened by adding a ‘h’ as the second letter and then Mh is pronounced ‘v’! Very confusing

Aspiration also doesn’t happen to all names!

 

[carlos19]

Gaelic sounds cool though when its spoken

 

[carlos19]

On the Giles note…can you post an example of when he erred or when his editing changed the context…you
piqued my inquest

 

[Montalban]

On the Giles note…can you post an example of when he erred or when his editing changed the context…you
piqued my inquest

Selective quoting is itself an error.

The title of the book being “Documents illustrating papal authority” yet if it just cites a passage praising Peter and ignores a passage equally praising another then it doesn’t illustrate papal authority

At the very least your would require further argument to show why the praising of Peter is important, but not so that of another

I wrote this article on Wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

It shows (in part) that some terms used for Peter (such as head of the choir) are not Peter’s alone

 

[InNomineDomini]

Selective quoting is itself an error.

Well, yes, I suppose so.

But who said that “quote books” are only ever aimed towards individuals who have never read the primary sources? Or worse still, who never intend on reading the primary sources?

Such books are either a convenient reference, or they should be used to pique interest in actually reading the Church Fathers for one’s self. A dishonest editor is no more dishonest than the reader who refuses to actually follow the references and citations.

 

[Montalban]

Well, yes, I suppose so.

But who said that “quote books” are only ever aimed towards individuals who have never read the primary sources? Or worse still, who never intend on reading the primary sources?

Such books are either a convenient reference, or they should be used to pique interest in actually reading the Church Fathers for one’s self. A dishonest editor is no more dishonest than the reader who refuses to actually follow the references and citations.

No. As I noted he’s taken all the quotes out of context.

My own journey to Orthodoxy almost came to a near stop as four different friends of mine, quite independently of one another cited different quote-mine sites that alleged support from the ECFs, the Eastern Church, etc. for the papacy. Initially the sheer volume of ‘evidence’ seemed over-whelming.

It was from reading these quotes in context that actually drove me away from the Catholic Church. I reasoned that if a church’s case relied on such dubious use of evidence that it didn’t have much to go by.

And in my years of discussing these things, for the most part, all I get from Catholics is re-citing these quote mines by way of evidence.

There’s no real examination of it at all.

But anyway, I came here to find out who this ‘historian’ is.

To give you an example, not from Giles, but by Stephen K Ray (I think this guy’s a dreaful writer)…
“And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of [Pope] Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our lord neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus . . . But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace”, etc

Ray, S., (1996) Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Ignatius Press; San Francisco, CA), p155.

This example Ray gives to illustrate papal primacy shows an example where NO EVIDENCE of papal primacy existed!

The pope wasn’t able to persuade Polycarp to change at all!

 

[carlos19]

How would you define primacy

 

[carlos19]

Can you show one Giles quote…and also show the passage as it should be. I am curious…

I read the wikipedia and the tome of Leo entry…did you write that? I wasn’t to ask you anything about it

 

[MrPip]

No. As I noted he’s taken all the quotes out of context.

My own journey to Orthodoxy almost came to a near stop as four different friends of mine, quite independently of one another cited different quote-mine sites that alleged support from the ECFs, the Eastern Church, etc. for the papacy. Initially the sheer volume of ‘evidence’ seemed over-whelming.

It was from reading these quotes in context that actually drove me away from the Catholic Church. I reasoned that if a church’s case relied on such dubious use of evidence that it didn’t have much to go by.

And in my years of discussing these things, for the most part, all I get from Catholics is re-citing these quote mines by way of evidence.

There’s no real examination of it at all.

But anyway, I came here to find out who this ‘historian’ is.

To give you an example, not from Giles, but by Stephen K Ray (I think this guy’s a dreaful writer)…
“And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of [Pope] Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our lord neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus . . . But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace”, etc

Ray, S., (1996) Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Ignatius Press; San Francisco, CA), p155.

This example Ray gives to illustrate papal primacy shows an example where NO EVIDENCE of papal primacy existed!

The pope wasn’t able to persuade Polycarp to change at all!

Quotes or quotations, almost by definition, are taken out of context, especially in books of “Sayings of …”. Just a thought.