BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.

---

No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.

St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.

Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."

As a side note, please define "divine authority."

---

It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.

A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.

---

In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.

---

The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.

---

Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.

This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.

---

I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.

---

No. Again, the Christian world was far from consensus.

"Anathematized to hell" is not a concept that exists in Catholicism.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.

---

No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.

St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.

Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."

As a side note, please define "divine authority."

---

It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.

A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.

---

In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.

---

The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.

---

Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.

This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.

---

I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.

---

No. Again, the Christian world was far from consensus.

"Anathematized to hell" is not a concept that exists in Catholicism.

---

Far from consensus - just like the early view of the Real Presence.

Athanasius held a view that was anathematized by the same Church who made him a saint and Doctor. You're trying your best to run away from this, but you're failing.

And if you're denying that you're church didn't believe an anathema was a condemnation to Hell, then that is just more evidence of the ever-changing nature of the RCC. The bishops of the Council of Nicaea II clearly stated that "an anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.

---

No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.

St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.

Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."

As a side note, please define "divine authority."

---

It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.

A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.

---

In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.

---

The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.

---

Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.

This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.

---

I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.

---

No. Again, the Christian world was far from consensus.

"Anathematized to hell" is not a concept that exists in Catholicism.

---

Far from consensus - just like the early view of the Real Presence.

Athanasius held a view that was anathematized by the same Church who made him a saint and Doctor. You're trying your best to run away from this, but you're failing.

And if you're denying that you're church didn't believe an anathema was a condemnation to Hell, then that is just more evidence of the ever-changing nature of the RCC. The bishops of the Council of Nicaea II clearly stated that "an anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."

---

No, the Church believes in Real Presence as an article of faith received from Christ himself.

Anathemas are remedial in nature. No human being or institution passes final judgment on anyone's soul.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.

---

No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.

St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.

Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."

As a side note, please define "divine authority."

---

It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.

A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.

---

In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.

---

The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.

---

Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.

This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.

---

I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

The gospel is not data, ergo, no tenets. The gospel is Jesus Himself.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Crazy how I Pointed this out here and other much much larger boards and on YouTube etc months ago and now it's showing up in lots of places.

---

Ummm. Anytbing I say or publish is based on scripture and doctrine of the church.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.

---

No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.

St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.

Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."

As a side note, please define "divine authority."

---

It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.

A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.

---

In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.

---

The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.

---

Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.

This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.

---

I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.

---

No. Again, the Christian world was far from consensus.

"Anathematized to hell" is not a concept that exists in Catholicism.

---

Far from consensus - just like the early view of the Real Presence.

Athanasius held a view that was anathematized by the same Church who made him a saint and Doctor. You're trying your best to run away from this, but you're failing.

And if you're denying that you're church didn't believe an anathema was a condemnation to Hell, then that is just more evidence of the ever-changing nature of the RCC. The bishops of the Council of Nicaea II clearly stated that "an anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."

---

No, the Church believes in Real Presence as an article of faith received from Christ himself.

Anathemas are remedial in nature. No human being or institution passes final judgment on anyone's soul.

---

The early church did NOT have a consensus view on the nature of the Real Presence. This is what you're running away from. Any claim that there was a consensus does not have the support of history.

You're also running away from the clear declaration from the bishops of Nicaea II what an anathema means.

Revelation 12 references 4 people. We all know who they are right?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Crazy how I Pointed this out here and other much much larger boards and on YouTube etc months ago and now it's showing up in lots of places.

---

Ummm. Anytbing I say or publish is based on scripture and doctrine of the church.

---

Until the final five words of the above sentence are forever discarded (and all churches look for wiggle room that is not to be found in Scripture) no one can be or ever will be free indeed.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelation 12 references 4 people. We all know who they are right?

---

Christians are more focused on Christ's words in the Gospel.

You do you.

As I am sure is common knowledge heee, the Immaculate Conception predates the concept of the Trinity being written about

Fascinating

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelation 12 references 4 people. We all know who they are right?

---

Christians are more focused on Christ's words in the Gospel.

You do you.

---

How convenient. protestant Christians are believers of 4 of the 73 books?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelation 12 references 4 people. We all know who they are right?

---

Christians are more focused on Christ's words in the Gospel.

You do you.

---

How convenient. protestant Christians are believers of 4 of the 73 books?

---

If only you would hearken to the Holy Spirit in place of the spiteful one which you use in these posts.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.

---

No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.

St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.

Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."

As a side note, please define "divine authority."

---

It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.

A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.

---

In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.

---

The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.

---

Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.

This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.

---

I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.

---

No. Again, the Christian world was far from consensus.

"Anathematized to hell" is not a concept that exists in Catholicism.

---

Far from consensus - just like the early view of the Real Presence.

Athanasius held a view that was anathematized by the same Church who made him a saint and Doctor. You're trying your best to run away from this, but you're failing.

And if you're denying that you're church didn't believe an anathema was a condemnation to Hell, then that is just more evidence of the ever-changing nature of the RCC. The bishops of the Council of Nicaea II clearly stated that "an anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."

---

No, the Church believes in Real Presence as an article of faith received from Christ himself.

Anathemas are remedial in nature. No human being or institution passes final judgment on anyone's soul.

---

The early church did NOT have a consensus view on the nature of the Real Presence. This is what you're running away from. Any claim that there was a consensus does not have the support of history.

You're also running away from the clear declaration from the bishops of Nicaea II what an anathema means.

---

I'm shocked that you disagree about the history, but that's beside the point. The point is that from the Church's perspective the issues with Augustine and Athanasius are fundamentally different. Please tell me you understand this much, if we're to continue.

Sam LowryI really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.

---

No. Again, the Christian world was far from consensus.

"Anathematized to hell" is not a concept that exists in Catholicism.

---

Far from consensus - just like the early view of the Real Presence.

Athanasius held a view that was anathematized by the same Church who made him a saint and Doctor. You're trying your best to run away from this, but you're failing.

And if you're denying that you're church didn't believe an anathema was a condemnation to Hell, then that is just more evidence of the ever-changing nature of the RCC. The bishops of the Council of Nicaea II clearly stated that "an anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."

---

No, the Church believes in Real Presence as an article of faith received from Christ himself.

Anathemas are remedial in nature. No human being or institution passes final judgment on anyone's soul.

---

The early church did NOT have a consensus view on the nature of the Real Presence. This is what you're running away from. Any claim that there was a consensus does not have the support of history.

You're also running away from the clear declaration from the bishops of Nicaea II what an anathema means.

---

I'm shocked that you disagree about the history, but that's beside the point. The point is that from the Church's perspective the issues with Augustine and Athanasius are fundamentally different. Please tell me you understand this much, if we're to continue.

---

They're not fundamentally different at all, with regard to the assertion made - that Augustine would not have been sainted or Doctored by the RCC if he held views contrary to what the RCC later dogmatized. It they did for Athanasius, there isn't a reason to think they wouldn't have for Augustine.

Why you're choosing to prolong something so basic and easy to understand through baseless argumentation, is beyond me. Oh, who am I kidding, it's not beyond me at all, that's your MO every time you're shown to be wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.

---

No. Again, the Christian world was far from consensus.

"Anathematized to hell" is not a concept that exists in Catholicism.

---

Far from consensus - just like the early view of the Real Presence.

Athanasius held a view that was anathematized by the same Church who made him a saint and Doctor. You're trying your best to run away from this, but you're failing.

And if you're denying that you're church didn't believe an anathema was a condemnation to Hell, then that is just more evidence of the ever-changing nature of the RCC. The bishops of the Council of Nicaea II clearly stated that "an anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."

---

No, the Church believes in Real Presence as an article of faith received from Christ himself.

Anathemas are remedial in nature. No human being or institution passes final judgment on anyone's soul.

---

The early church did NOT have a consensus view on the nature of the Real Presence. This is what you're running away from. Any claim that there was a consensus does not have the support of history.

You're also running away from the clear declaration from the bishops of Nicaea II what an anathema means.

---

I'm shocked that you disagree about the history, but that's beside the point. The point is that from the Church's perspective the issues with Augustine and Athanasius are fundamentally different. Please tell me you understand this much, if we're to continue.

---

They're not fundamentally different at all, with regard to the assertion made - that Augustine would not have been sainted or Doctored by the RCC if he held views contrary to what the RCC later dogmatized. It they did for Athanasius, there isn't a reason to think they wouldn't have for Augustine.

Why you're choosing to prolong something so basic and easy to understand through baseless argumentation, is beyond me. Oh, who am I kidding, it's not beyond me at all, that's your MO every time you're shown to be wrong.

---

So you honestly don't see the difference between Jesus saying "this is my Body" and Jesus saying "this is the written canon to which you shall adhere on pain of anathema, even though it hasn't been written yet."

Fair enough.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryI really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?

---

Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.

---

"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.

Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.

---

Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?

Now we're really skeptical of your take.

---

They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.

---

With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.

---

No. Again, the Christian world was far from consensus.

"Anathematized to hell" is not a concept that exists in Catholicism.

---

Far from consensus - just like the early view of the Real Presence.

Athanasius held a view that was anathematized by the same Church who made him a saint and Doctor. You're trying your best to run away from this, but you're failing.

And if you're denying that you're church didn't believe an anathema was a condemnation to Hell, then that is just more evidence of the ever-changing nature of the RCC. The bishops of the Council of Nicaea II clearly stated that "an anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."

---

No, the Church believes in Real Presence as an article of faith received from Christ himself.

Anathemas are remedial in nature. No human being or institution passes final judgment on anyone's soul.

---

The early church did NOT have a consensus view on the nature of the Real Presence. This is what you're running away from. Any claim that there was a consensus does not have the support of history.

You're also running away from the clear declaration from the bishops of Nicaea II what an anathema means.

---

I'm shocked that you disagree about the history, but that's beside the point. The point is that from the Church's perspective the issues with Augustine and Athanasius are fundamentally different. Please tell me you understand this much, if we're to continue.

---

They're not fundamentally different at all, with regard to the assertion made - that Augustine would not have been sainted or Doctored by the RCC if he held views contrary to what the RCC later dogmatized. It they did for Athanasius, there isn't a reason to think they wouldn't have for Augustine.

Why you're choosing to prolong something so basic and easy to understand through baseless argumentation, is beyond me. Oh, who am I kidding, it's not beyond me at all, that's your MO every time you're shown to be wrong.

---

So you honestly don't see the difference between Jesus saying "this is my Body" and Jesus saying "this is the written canon to which you shall adhere on pain of anathema, even though it hasn't been written yet."

Fair enough.

---

Do you honestly see any relevance to what you're arguing?

Your MO, as I noted.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelation 12 references 4 people. We all know who they are right?

---

Christians are more focused on Christ's words in the Gospel.

You do you.

---

How convenient. protestant Christians are believers of 4 of the 73 books?

---

If only you would hearken to the Holy Spirit in place of the spiteful one which you use in these posts.

---

Seems you may not know the meaning of spite

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelation 12 references 4 people. We all know who they are right?

---

Christians are more focused on Christ's words in the Gospel.

You do you.

---

How convenient. protestant Christians are believers of 4 of the 73 books?

---

If only you would hearken to the Holy Spirit in place of the spiteful one which you use in these posts.

---

Seems you may not know the meaning of spite

---

Of course I do. And sadly you use it a lot in this thread.

Not to the degree that someone we both know does (and when he reads this, the predictable explosion will confirm that point), but there certainly is a mendacious effort to bully your opinion over and over, which is a harmful behavior which damages the civility we mostly are pursuing.

There is no chance at this point that you could convince a Protestant Christian to start praying to Mary, anymore than a Protestant could convince you that it is wrong to pray to her. Knowing this, it would seem the best course to acknowledge this truth, and to further leave the matter to the Holy Spirit to speak to us all for better purpose than this endless bickering, and work for common agreement and service to the Lord as brothers in Christ.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelation 12 references 4 people. We all know who they are right?

---

Christians are more focused on Christ's words in the Gospel.

You do you.

---

How convenient. protestant Christians are believers of 4 of the 73 books?

---

If only you would hearken to the Holy Spirit in place of the spiteful one which you use in these posts.

---

Seems you may not know the meaning of spite

---

Of course I do. And sadly you use it a lot in this thread.

Not to the degree that someone we both know does (and when he reads this, the predictable explosion will confirm that point), but there certainly is a mendacious effort to bully your opinion over and over, which is a harmful behavior which damages the civility we mostly are pursuing.

There is no chance at this point that you could convince a Protestant Christian to start praying to Mary, anymore than a Protestant could convince you that it is wrong to pray to her. Knowing this, it would seem the best course to acknowledge this truth, and to further leave the matter to the Holy Spirit to speak to us all for better purpose than this endless bickering, and work for common agreement and service to the Lord as brothers in Christ.

---

Everyone has free will of course. At a minimum i have provided an opportunity for people to consider things, doctrine, written texts near 2,000 years old etc that undoubtedly provided them with info and considerations theyve likely never heard in their life.

For that i am pleased. Ive not written in mean or spiteful fashion but if someone behaves that way, Ive not been bullied, which is only fair.

I've tried andwill continue to aspire to always be fact based as best I can. All for consideration in the hopes it maybe helps or saves some if not all.

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Crazy how I Pointed this out here and other much much larger boards and on YouTube etc months ago and now it's showing up in lots of places.

---

Ummm. Anytbing I say or publish is based on scripture and doctrine of the church.

---

Until the final five words of the above sentence are forever discarded (and all churches look for wiggle room that is not to be found in Scripture) no one can be or ever will be free indeed.

---

Why? It's directly taken from scripture. You may not want to acknowledge it but it's written in plain sight

It's quite interesting here what is defended yet can simply be provided with similar other examples and nobody Even bats an eye, jist a harumph

For example, the Bible doesnt say Jesus wasmt married.

The Bible doesn't explicitly say he was a virgin.

I could go on and on

We're Mary and Joseph married when Gabriel spoke to
Mary?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Rational, intelligent, and honest people know the context. I gave it, fully. And they know that I'm right.

And I've been explaining over and over that your church has sainted and doctored other church fathers that don't agree with your church's teachings, even the dogmatic ones. You're just too dishonest to admit it. I'll even give an example here, so we can demonstrate this: Athanasius did not believe in the dogmatized canon of Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church.

^^^ Folks, now watch the denial and dishonesty.

---

You missed again.

Athanasius held a different view of the canon, as did others during this period, as the canon was still being debated.

The Church would not dogmatize the canon of scripture for another 1200 years after Luther tried to remove the Deuterocanon and 4 books of the NT.

BTW, Calvin accepted Baruch as canon, but that's not the point at hand.

You are still failing to explain how the Church could canonize and declare someone a DOCTOR of the Church if they didn't believe in one of the most CORE tenants of the Church.

Just to solidify the fact that Augustine ABSOLUTELY believed in the Real Presence, please also explain how the Church would allow the Order of St. Augustine (friars) to exist, if he didn't believe in the Real Presence.

BTW - The current Pope is an Augustinian.

You want your point to be true SO badly, that you have completely thrown rationality out the window.

I'll wait patiently for you to explain how the Church could allow this.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wes Huff on why he is not Catholic

---

Just last week, Trent released a video praising Huff for being one of the best current Christian apologists. He still stands by his video and even comments so in this video.

Joe is so bright and clearly lays out Wes' errors.

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wes Huff on why he is not Catholic

---

Just last week, Trent released a video praising Huff for being one of the best current Christian apologists. He still stands by his video and even comments so in this video.

Joe is so bright and clearly lays out Wes' errors.

---

Thanks. I'll have to watch it this evening

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Rational, intelligent, and honest people know the context. I gave it, fully. And they know that I'm right.

And I've been explaining over and over that your church has sainted and doctored other church fathers that don't agree with your church's teachings, even the dogmatic ones. You're just too dishonest to admit it. I'll even give an example here, so we can demonstrate this: Athanasius did not believe in the dogmatized canon of Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church.

^^^ Folks, now watch the denial and dishonesty.

---

You missed again.

Athanasius held a different view of the canon, as did others during this period, as the canon was still being debated.

The Church would not dogmatize the canon of scripture for another 1200 years after Luther tried to remove the Deuterocanon and 4 books of the NT.

BTW, Calvin accepted Baruch as canon, but that's not the point at hand.

You are still failing to explain how the Church could canonize and declare someone a DOCTOR of the Church if they didn't believe in one of the most CORE tenants of the Church.

Just to solidify the fact that Augustine ABSOLUTELY believed in the Real Presence, please also explain how the Church would allow the Order of St. Augustine (friars) to exist, if he didn't believe in the Real Presence.

BTW - The current Pope is an Augustinian.

You want your point to be true SO badly, that you have completely thrown rationality out the window.

I'll wait patiently for you to explain how the Church could allow this.

---

Seriously... HOW are you not getting this?

- The canon was debated during Athanasius time and would not be dogmatized for another 1200 years.
- The view of the Real Presence was also debated during Augustine's time and would not be dogmatized until the 13th century.

Both Athanasius and Augustine held to different views than that which was dogmatized much later. In other words, their views were anathematized. If Athanasius was sainted and Doctored by the Church despite this, then there is no reason to think that the Church would not have allowed Augustine to be. Your reasoning is heavily flawed and you have some sort of mental block regarding this. You just won't allow yourself to see it.

You're also playing the motte-and-bailey game by merely referring to Augustine's belief in the "Real Presence" - but that didn't mean he believed in transubstantiation which is the RCC's view of the Real Presence. As I have shown from his quotes, he clearly did not believe that. If you deny this, you are either dishonest or dumb. There's just no other way to say it.

Spoiler Alert: After five months and hundreds of posts, no one has changed their opinion here.

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wes Huff on why he is not Catholic

---

Joe is so bright and clearly lays out Wes' errors.

---

Wes has it exactly right. Joe and the other RC apologists have to engage in dishonest or inaccurate and poor reasoning to defend against them.

If you don't think so, then please provide the ONE best argument from any of those videos above that you believe proves Wes wrong, and let's evaluate it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Spoiler Alert: After five months and hundreds of posts, no one has changed their opinion here.

---

That isn't always the goal. Exposure of flawed and dishonest thinking in order to maintain one's beliefs is a worthy goal too. And that definitely has been exposed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Spoiler Alert: After five months and hundreds of posts, no one has changed their opinion here.

---

I have many different opinions from what I had 5 months ago

Some things said on here have made me question and change or question and reaffirm my opinion

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wes Huff on why he is not Catholic

---

Joe is so bright and clearly lays out Wes' errors.

---

Wes has it exactly right. Joe and the other RC apologists have to engage in dishonest or inaccurate and poor reasoning to defend against them.

If you don't think so, then please provide the ONE best argument from any of those videos above that you believe proves Wes wrong, and let's evaluate it.

---

This is laughable. Did you watch Trent's video? He sends EVERY script of his to his interlocutor to ensure that he doesn't misrepresent their point.

He even states that he amended his script after Wes' response to NOT misrepresent his points.

As for debating a point not covered in their collective responses, I don't need to. The three combined to shown that Wes misrepresents was Catholicism is.

If you'd like to discuss a "Wes" point, please feel free to elaborate. I'm happy to discuss one at time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Seriously... HOW are you not getting this?

---

Because you are in correct in your statement below. Or at least, you seriously misunderstand them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The canon was debated during Athanasius time and would not be dogmatized for another 1200 years.
- The view of the Real Presence was also debated during Augustine's time and would not be dogmatized until the 13th century.

---

We both accept that the canon was being debated during this time. That's historical record.

But the belief in the Real Presence began at the onset of Christianity. Augustine and others NEVER debated this.

Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J.N.D. Kelly writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood."

There is no need for me to provide further historical quotes for this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Both Athanasius and Augustine held to different views than that which was dogmatized much later. In other words, their views were anathematized. If Athanasius was sainted and Doctored by the Church despite this, then there is no reason to think that the Church would not have allowed Augustine to be. Your reasoning is heavily flawed and you have some sort of mental block regarding this. You just won't allow yourself to see it.

---

I'm afraid it is you that has the mental block on this. The canon was debated for 3 centuries AFTER the books were written. The belief in the Real Presence has been the same since PENTECOST.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're also playing the motte-and-bailey game by merely referring to Augustine's belief in the "Real Presence" - but that didn't mean he believed in transubstantiation which is the RCC's view of the Real Presence. As I have shown from his quotes, he clearly did not believe that. If you deny this, you are either dishonest or dumb. There's just no other way to say it.

---

Once again, you are confusing terms here.

The Real Presence is WHAT happens and Transubstantiation is HOW it happens.

Yes, Transubstantiation was not formalized until 1215 and dogmatized until 1551, but the belief in the Real Presence (just as Augustine accepted it) began from the beginnings of the Church.

The difference between Augustine and Athanasius is apples and oranges.

I hope that you are able to honestly understand the difference. If so, please explain how the Church would call a man a doctor and a saint (and later have an order of friars named after him) IF that man didn't believe in a CORE tenant of the Church.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wes Huff on why he is not Catholic

---

Joe is so bright and clearly lays out Wes' errors.

---

Wes has it exactly right. Joe and the other RC apologists have to engage in dishonest or inaccurate and poor reasoning to defend against them.

If you don't think so, then please provide the ONE best argument from any of those videos above that you believe proves Wes wrong, and let's evaluate it.

---

This is laughable. Did you watch Trent's video? He sends EVERY script of his to his interlocutor to ensure that he doesn't misrepresent their point.

He even states that he amended his script after Wes' response to NOT misrepresent his points.

As for debating a point not covered in their collective responses, I don't need to. The three combined to shown that Wes misrepresents was Catholicism is.

If you'd like to discuss a "Wes" point, please feel free to elaborate. I'm happy to discuss one at time.

---

What's "laughable" is your attempt to hide from the fact that you couldn't produce ONE best argument from any of those videos that we can discuss, so that I could perhaps show you. "Misrepresenting" Wes Huff's points wasn't what I said. I specifically said, which anyone can read above, that RC apologists have to engage in dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning to defend against Wes' points. Your poor reading and comprehension rears its ugly head again.

You: "If you'd like to discuss a "Wes" point... I'm happy to discuss one at a time".
I'm the one who challenged YOU to produce a point against Wes, any ONE, from those videos. Why are you ducking the challenge, and then turning it around to me to have to give a point to discuss? Do you not know what you're doing? Do you think it really works this way? Why not just admit that you probably didn't even watch those videos, OR Wes Huff's, or you didn't understand them?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Seriously... HOW are you not getting this?

---

Because you are in correct in your statement below. Or at least, you seriously misunderstand them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The canon was debated during Athanasius time and would not be dogmatized for another 1200 years.
- The view of the Real Presence was also debated during Augustine's time and would not be dogmatized until the 13th century.

---

We both accept that the canon was being debated during this time. That's historical record.

But the belief in the Real Presence began at the onset of Christianity. Augustine and others NEVER debated this.

Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J.N.D. Kelly writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood."

There is no need for me to provide further historical quotes for this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Both Athanasius and Augustine held to different views than that which was dogmatized much later. In other words, their views were anathematized. If Athanasius was sainted and Doctored by the Church despite this, then there is no reason to think that the Church would not have allowed Augustine to be. Your reasoning is heavily flawed and you have some sort of mental block regarding this. You just won't allow yourself to see it.

---

I'm afraid it is you that has the mental block on this. The canon was debated for 3 centuries AFTER the books were written. The belief in the Real Presence has been the same since PENTECOST.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're also playing the motte-and-bailey game by merely referring to Augustine's belief in the "Real Presence" - but that didn't mean he believed in transubstantiation which is the RCC's view of the Real Presence. As I have shown from his quotes, he clearly did not believe that. If you deny this, you are either dishonest or dumb. There's just no other way to say it.

---

Once again, you are confusing terms here.

The Real Presence is WHAT happens and Transubstantiation is HOW it happens.

Yes, Transubstantiation was not formalized until 1215 and dogmatized until 1551, but the belief in the Real Presence (just as Augustine accepted it) began from the beginnings of the Church.

The difference between Augustine and Athanasius is apples and oranges.

I hope that you are able to honestly understand the difference. If so, please explain how the Church would call a man a doctor and a saint (and later have an order of friars named after him) IF that man didn't believe in a CORE tenant of the Church.

---

You're either being dishonest, or once again your poor comprehension is rearing its ugly head.

Do you not understand what a motte-and-bailey fallacy is? Because that's what you're consistently doing with your "Real Presence" argument. You're constantly referring to the fact that Augustine believed in the "Real Presence" without ever explaining what that meant. The concept of the Real Presence was NOT agreed upon by the early church fathers. There is plenty of historical evidence for this. The "Real Presence" wasn't even a term they used. That is a term later used in RC. In the early church, there were BOTH literalistic and symbolic/spiritual interpretations of the Last Supper:

"The Ancient Church produced no dogma of the Lord's Supper. Two methods of presenting the subject are found side by side without any attempt at discrimination. They are commonly spoken of as the metabolic and symbolic views. Pope Gelasius I taught that 'the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist, although the elements, the Holy Spirit perfecting them, pass over … into a divine substance, as was the case with Christ himself. And certainly the image and likeness … are honored… in the observance … of the mysteries.'…The theologians of the Carlovingian period, as Augustinians, were fond of emphasizing the symbolical character of the ordinance, presenting it as a memorial and a symbol" - church historian Reinhold Seeburg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume Two, p. 34).

Did you catch that last part? Augustinians believed in the memorialistic and symbolic nature of the Eucharist.

Church history also shows that the nature of the "Real Presence" was debated all the way into the 11th century. You are just flatly wrong that "the belief in the Real Presence has been the same since Pentecost".

There is NO difference between Athanasius and Augustine in this regard. Both held to views that were later anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church. This is the fact that you have to keep running away from, and create artificial distinctions for in order to argue against.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're either being dishonest, or once again your poor comprehension is rearing its ugly head.

Do you not understand what a motte-and-bailey fallacy is? Because that's what you're consistently doing with your "Real Presence" argument. You're constantly referring to the fact that Augustine believed in the "Real Presence" without ever explaining what that meant. The concept of the Real Presence was NOT agreed upon by the early church fathers. There is plenty of historical evidence for this. The "Real Presence" wasn't even a term they used. That is a term later used in RC. In the early church, there were BOTH literalistic and symbolic/spiritual interpretations of the Last Supper:

---

I thought that both sides had long ago decided that "Real Presence" means what the Catholic Church as: "The bread and wine are completely transformed into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, rather than being mere symbols."

Augustine believed this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"The Ancient Church produced no dogma of the Lord's Supper. Two methods of presenting the subject are found side by side without any attempt at discrimination. They are commonly spoken of as the metabolic and symbolic views. Pope Gelasius I taught that 'the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist, although the elements, the Holy Spirit perfecting them, pass over … into a divine substance, as was the case with Christ himself. And certainly the image and likeness … are honored… in the observance … of the mysteries.'…The theologians of the Carlovingian period, as Augustinians, were fond of emphasizing the symbolical character of the ordinance, presenting it as a memorial and a symbol" - church historian Reinhold Seeburg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume Two, p. 34).

Did you catch that last part? Augustinians believed in the memorialistic and symbolic nature of the Eucharist.

---

I had to do some research on this Reinhold Seeburg, a German Lutheran scholar writing in the late 19th century.

When Seeburg writes that the Carolingian-period theologians as Augustinians were fond of "presenting it as a memorial and a symbol," he is describing a 9th-century (not ancient Church) theological tendency, specifically among certain medieval theologians who drew heavily on Augustine's sacramental language of signum (sign) and res (reality).

Augustine's language of sign and symbol does not mean "mere symbol" in the modern sense. For Augustine, a sacramental sign is efficacious it truly effects what it signifies. When Carolingian Augustinians spoke symbolically, many were not denying Real Presence but trying to articulate it in Augustinian philosophical categories. The debate was largely semantic and philosophical, not a flat denial of Christ's presence.

The key figure here is Ratramnus of Corbie. Ratramnus maintained that the elements are not the actual body and blood of the Christ of history, but are mystic symbols of remembrance making him a symbolist, seeing in the Eucharist a sacrificial meal, the efficacy of which depends on the intensity of faith. Like most other theologians of the Carolingian period, Ratramnus was a traditionalist drawing primarily on Augustinian thought.

This is the critical point where Seeburg's framing can mislead if lifted out of context. The Carolingian "symbolic" tendency was a minority position being contested, not the orthodox consensus.

Standing directly against Ratramnus was Paschasius Radbertus, a Carolingian theologian who articulated a clear doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, proposing that the bread and wine truly became the actual body and blood of Christ.

King Charles the Bald did not agree with Paschasius' teaching that there was a literal and physical presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and imposed upon Ratramnus to argue a counterposition. In his treatise, Ratramnus argued that the Holy Eucharist is merely a symbolic representation of Christ's Body and Blood.

This was a politically driven theological controversy not a reflection of the ancient Church's settled faith. And the Church ultimately sided with Paschasius.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Church history also shows that the nature of the "Real Presence" was debated all the way into the 11th century. You are just flatly wrong that "the belief in the Real Presence has been the same since Pentecost".

---

Since the beginning of the Church, it has been believed that "Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist. The bread and wine do not merely symbolize Him. They become Him."

It was contested in the 9th century, as previously discussed, and in the 11th century.

Berengar of Tours, in the 11century, did deny belief in the Real Presence. He argued that the bread and wine remain substantially unchanged and that Christ's presence is purely spiritual or symbolic.

Berengar was condemned at multiple councils, and he was required to profess that the bread and wine are "truly changed" into the Body and Blood of Christ.

As you can (should) see, the Church still maintained the same belief in the Real Presence. It was forced to deal with individuals or small factions that doubted it.

This set the stage for the formal definition of Transubstantiation in 1215. The true Augustinians (Order of St Augustine) was founded in 1244, decades after the definition of Transubstantiation. If Augustine didn't believe in the Real Presence, Pope Innocent IV would never have allowed this Order to be formed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is NO difference between Athanasius and Augustine in this regard. Both held to views that were later anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church. This is the fact that you have to keep running away from, and create artificial distinctions for in order to argue against.

---

As you can see, there actually is a difference between the two.

Augustine's view in the Real Presence was NEVER anathematized.

Augustine believed in the Real Presence, which has been a consistent belief since the beginning of Church. Athanasius had questions about a canon that was NOT fully formed in his day.

I hope that you can see the difference given these facts.