please correct this article to reflect what i wrote. you deliberately misrepresented what i wrote to straw man the catholic faith. i am appalled. i wrote: "For me the three arguments that are convincing are, 1, its proclaimed by the pope, 2 its also been testified to by saint visionaries, and many miracles (Think about Lourdes!), and 3 its fitting with the revelation of the bible, also with natural reason for Mary to be without sin and concieved without original sin." a miracle decided the council of nicea against the arians, but thats apparently not traditional to you. how did they decide on the word substance when it wasnt always everywhere used? they saw the hand of God in the miracle of St Nicholas recieving his mitre in prison. what got so many jews to break with the traditions of the old law, well the miracles of the saints following the resurrection of christ, or thats what we read in the bible. but miraculous activity has always been apart of discerning what is and isnt tradition. you speak of patristic tradition, how is not not merely what is constituted by these three things, proper aurthority, extraordinary sanctity attested to by miracles, and scripture. "but to proclaim a dogma requires that it it has already been universally held as a belief." says who? and this means the IC is not in continuity with tradition. the same quote misunderstood could be used to reject any council of the church. again, please show some integrity and at least change what you wrote to reflect the three things i mentioned.
"I was surprised that these could possibly be criteria for justifying anything dogmatic," what are you talking about? what is tradition? tradition says to heed these very things really what?
I said they have value as a support for dogmas already established, but to proclaim a dogma requires that it it has already been universally held as a belief. To argue over signs, wonders and miracles is not my intent, but to give people a patristic teaching on the way the Church judges the truth of doctrinal assertions.
ok well i thought canonizations were apert of tradition too, they were based on miracles in the early church and still today. so you omit the part of my justification that is traditional, obviously visions are not but I was speaking for me personally that the visions of anne catherine emmerich have been very helpful in understanding this doctrine, and then focus on your misrepresentation of my thought to bolster your claim. cool. hope it was worth it pal. the councils are accepted on the back of ecclesial authority which was reason number one i gave you. my reasoning is exactly what constituted tradition in the early church. is perplexing to see you refuse to comprehend this and parade the word tradition as if it lies far afield from these reasons. patristic teaching, who decided that, well miracles did usually, because of the posthomus miracles occuring through the intercession of people like justin martyr, polycarp. you sound like a pharasee when you say who am i to judge miracles. look into lourdes. God Acts and its so obviously an act of God specifically oriented toward the confirmation of this doctrine.
Stephen, I intentionally left both the context and author out of my introduction, addressing only the three points you made that justified the dogma for you,and that only to contrast with the different principles laid out by St. Vincent. You quoted your three points, feel free to post the whole comment. It is yours. I did not want to bring you personally into this and did nothing to suggest anyone or even any context. I did that because I have respect for you and for your fidelity to your tradition. But your furious reaction is puzzling. I only argued against the criteria you presented. An idea. Let us not get so enraged when I did nothing to make this in any way an attack against you, or your faith. I never attacked your faith, you took it that way because I used the criteria from your response to me. I never mentioned your points in connection with the Roman Catholic Church, nor did I bring up ots dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This is hysteria. To restate your three points in the way that I did is neither disingenuous nor dishonest. I called them a proclamation of the first hierarch, visions of your saints, and consonance with the Scriptures. These are not dishonest restatements of what you said, and I do not want this to be personal.
Nevertheless, it is clear that I have offended you personally, and for that I ask forgiveness. I took a measure to avoid that but it clearly was not enough, and it has distracted from the whole point of the article, which is a patristic exposition from a 5th century Western father on how to recognize when a certain new doctrine or teaching is true, which is a different set of criteria for sure than what you employed. I stand by what I said and mean no personal insult to you or, by extension , your faith. The introductory paragraph is hardly consequential to the article, and I, out of respect for you personally, am removing it entirely.
thank you for removing. i dont think to reduce my text to citing no2= visions as you did, which categorized the visions of saints and miracles like lourdes together, was a faithful rendition of what i wrote, but an attempt to make it rediculous, as if catholic theology was based on mystical visions. when one looks at scripture, the formation of tradition in church history, i think miracles do play a key factor in discerning the truth, i dont like the misrepresentation of thougths of mine period, but particularly when they give occasion to lend credence to a few other claims to which I disagree. thanks again for removing.
In the instance we discussed, it was a vision, was it not, that asserted the dogma? I think you can substitute or add miracles to visions to the same effect/objections. I was not speaking of Lourdes or any particular visions or miracles, but the idea that such could be a justification for a new doctrine. I do not mean to misrepresent your second point by only using the term visions instead of miracles. But again, I don't know why you think I used it to denegrate your faith when I made no mention of it. At all. The only faith I specifically called out was Protestantism. I wish you would rather object to those things I actually said rather than what you think I meant by them.
Of course I take issue with using signs when justifying something that may violate the rule of universality. I could fill inboxes all day with quotes from the fathers warning against this, even St. Paul warns, even if the teaching comes from an angel, and it is different from what has been passed down, then reject it. That is not the same thing as saying miracles count for nothing or denying their place within Tradition. Let us argue our differences dispassionately.
Thank you for your change in tone, and I hope you forgive me for any personal insult I have caused you, and I certainly hope that we can freely engage in the future.
i did not feel personally insulted, im surprised you didnt express your rejection of my justification to me directly as would be my prefrrence but thats ok, i didnt like that my thoughts were misrepresented, that is all, and now they arent so its no problem. id be perfectly fine with you returning the paragraph so long as miracles is meintioned in the second category, you can use my name even and name the dogma. maybe ill learn im not thinking properly about this i do think you can do a little more work to bring together what i said with the patristic view of the matter, this bothers me as i dont think u have to read my reasons as either x/or tradition. i think my reasoning is traditional and would alter my opinion if proved otherwise. but its your blog reason how you please.
reducing the second point to visions of saints is rather disingenuous. i said miracles and mentioned lourdes directly as a most important example. so the Mother of God appearing to a young shepherd girl, telling her she is the immaculate conception, something she has no clue about, and then this site being a site of unabating supernatural healings from that point on is much much more than the vision of a single saint-visionary. i dont think what is so obviously a work of God could be used to decieve people into believiing false doctrines.
please correct this article to reflect what i wrote. you deliberately misrepresented what i wrote to straw man the catholic faith. i am appalled. i wrote: "For me the three arguments that are convincing are, 1, its proclaimed by the pope, 2 its also been testified to by saint visionaries, and many miracles (Think about Lourdes!), and 3 its fitting with the revelation of the bible, also with natural reason for Mary to be without sin and concieved without original sin." a miracle decided the council of nicea against the arians, but thats apparently not traditional to you. how did they decide on the word substance when it wasnt always everywhere used? they saw the hand of God in the miracle of St Nicholas recieving his mitre in prison. what got so many jews to break with the traditions of the old law, well the miracles of the saints following the resurrection of christ, or thats what we read in the bible. but miraculous activity has always been apart of discerning what is and isnt tradition. you speak of patristic tradition, how is not not merely what is constituted by these three things, proper aurthority, extraordinary sanctity attested to by miracles, and scripture. "but to proclaim a dogma requires that it it has already been universally held as a belief." says who? and this means the IC is not in continuity with tradition. the same quote misunderstood could be used to reject any council of the church. again, please show some integrity and at least change what you wrote to reflect the three things i mentioned.
"I was surprised that these could possibly be criteria for justifying anything dogmatic," what are you talking about? what is tradition? tradition says to heed these very things really what?
I said they have value as a support for dogmas already established, but to proclaim a dogma requires that it it has already been universally held as a belief. To argue over signs, wonders and miracles is not my intent, but to give people a patristic teaching on the way the Church judges the truth of doctrinal assertions.
ok well i thought canonizations were apert of tradition too, they were based on miracles in the early church and still today. so you omit the part of my justification that is traditional, obviously visions are not but I was speaking for me personally that the visions of anne catherine emmerich have been very helpful in understanding this doctrine, and then focus on your misrepresentation of my thought to bolster your claim. cool. hope it was worth it pal. the councils are accepted on the back of ecclesial authority which was reason number one i gave you. my reasoning is exactly what constituted tradition in the early church. is perplexing to see you refuse to comprehend this and parade the word tradition as if it lies far afield from these reasons. patristic teaching, who decided that, well miracles did usually, because of the posthomus miracles occuring through the intercession of people like justin martyr, polycarp. you sound like a pharasee when you say who am i to judge miracles. look into lourdes. God Acts and its so obviously an act of God specifically oriented toward the confirmation of this doctrine.
Stephen, I intentionally left both the context and author out of my introduction, addressing only the three points you made that justified the dogma for you,and that only to contrast with the different principles laid out by St. Vincent. You quoted your three points, feel free to post the whole comment. It is yours. I did not want to bring you personally into this and did nothing to suggest anyone or even any context. I did that because I have respect for you and for your fidelity to your tradition. But your furious reaction is puzzling. I only argued against the criteria you presented. An idea. Let us not get so enraged when I did nothing to make this in any way an attack against you, or your faith. I never attacked your faith, you took it that way because I used the criteria from your response to me. I never mentioned your points in connection with the Roman Catholic Church, nor did I bring up ots dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This is hysteria. To restate your three points in the way that I did is neither disingenuous nor dishonest. I called them a proclamation of the first hierarch, visions of your saints, and consonance with the Scriptures. These are not dishonest restatements of what you said, and I do not want this to be personal.
Nevertheless, it is clear that I have offended you personally, and for that I ask forgiveness. I took a measure to avoid that but it clearly was not enough, and it has distracted from the whole point of the article, which is a patristic exposition from a 5th century Western father on how to recognize when a certain new doctrine or teaching is true, which is a different set of criteria for sure than what you employed. I stand by what I said and mean no personal insult to you or, by extension , your faith. The introductory paragraph is hardly consequential to the article, and I, out of respect for you personally, am removing it entirely.
thank you for removing. i dont think to reduce my text to citing no2= visions as you did, which categorized the visions of saints and miracles like lourdes together, was a faithful rendition of what i wrote, but an attempt to make it rediculous, as if catholic theology was based on mystical visions. when one looks at scripture, the formation of tradition in church history, i think miracles do play a key factor in discerning the truth, i dont like the misrepresentation of thougths of mine period, but particularly when they give occasion to lend credence to a few other claims to which I disagree. thanks again for removing.
In the instance we discussed, it was a vision, was it not, that asserted the dogma? I think you can substitute or add miracles to visions to the same effect/objections. I was not speaking of Lourdes or any particular visions or miracles, but the idea that such could be a justification for a new doctrine. I do not mean to misrepresent your second point by only using the term visions instead of miracles. But again, I don't know why you think I used it to denegrate your faith when I made no mention of it. At all. The only faith I specifically called out was Protestantism. I wish you would rather object to those things I actually said rather than what you think I meant by them.
Of course I take issue with using signs when justifying something that may violate the rule of universality. I could fill inboxes all day with quotes from the fathers warning against this, even St. Paul warns, even if the teaching comes from an angel, and it is different from what has been passed down, then reject it. That is not the same thing as saying miracles count for nothing or denying their place within Tradition. Let us argue our differences dispassionately.
Thank you for your change in tone, and I hope you forgive me for any personal insult I have caused you, and I certainly hope that we can freely engage in the future.
i did not feel personally insulted, im surprised you didnt express your rejection of my justification to me directly as would be my prefrrence but thats ok, i didnt like that my thoughts were misrepresented, that is all, and now they arent so its no problem. id be perfectly fine with you returning the paragraph so long as miracles is meintioned in the second category, you can use my name even and name the dogma. maybe ill learn im not thinking properly about this i do think you can do a little more work to bring together what i said with the patristic view of the matter, this bothers me as i dont think u have to read my reasons as either x/or tradition. i think my reasoning is traditional and would alter my opinion if proved otherwise. but its your blog reason how you please.
reducing the second point to visions of saints is rather disingenuous. i said miracles and mentioned lourdes directly as a most important example. so the Mother of God appearing to a young shepherd girl, telling her she is the immaculate conception, something she has no clue about, and then this site being a site of unabating supernatural healings from that point on is much much more than the vision of a single saint-visionary. i dont think what is so obviously a work of God could be used to decieve people into believiing false doctrines.