Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

St. Ignatius and the Virgin Mary (exchange of letters)
The Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers at Classic Christian Ethereal Library ^ | ~60AD (?) | St. Ignatius, Virgin Mary

Posted on 08/06/2002 3:29:22 PM PDT by polemikos

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary

Her friend Ignatius, to the Christ-bearing Mary.

Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy [beloved] John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy [son] Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen.

Reply of the Blessed Virgin to This Letter.

The lowly handmaid of Christ Jesus to Ignatius, her beloved fellow-disciple.

The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast [in the faith], and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Saviour. Amen.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: antenicenefather; catholiclist; epistle; stignatius; virginmary
Something I stumbled across that I find remarkable.
1 posted on 08/06/2002 3:29:22 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
ping

Thought you might find this interesting.
2 posted on 08/06/2002 3:30:16 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; *Catholic_list
ping
3 posted on 08/06/2002 3:32:29 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan; EODGUY; nickcarraway
ping
4 posted on 08/06/2002 3:41:34 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Thanks. Great first post!
5 posted on 08/06/2002 3:54:04 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; Lady In Blue; PA Lurker
Ping!
6 posted on 08/06/2002 3:56:55 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession.

Yes Ma'am! With all of my heart! =)

Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast [in the faith], and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Saviour. Amen.

Lucky guy.

7 posted on 08/06/2002 3:59:20 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Yes Ma'am! With all of my heart!

I know. Just imagining this exchange, and hearing Mary testify for her Son...
I had no idea this existed. Remarkable. Inspiring.
8 posted on 08/06/2002 4:06:40 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Your post lead me to the following Q & A.

Where do we find the earliest examples of devotion to Mary and the Saints in the sense of requesting prayers of such people already deceased? Thank you.

The earliest possible allusion to the devotion to(or, the veneration) of Mary, and thus may be a prototype of similar developments to all the saints. This singular devotion (veneration) to Mary is found in documents going back [it appears] to the first century. St. Ignatius of Antioch lived from 35 A.D. to approximately 107 A.D., and was a Bishop and Martyr during Trajan's persecution. On his journey to execution he wrote seven letters to the Churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smryna, and to Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna. He reportedly, at an earlier time in his ministry and life also reportedly wrote to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which describes a certain veneration (devotion) in its content. Though this letter's authorship is questioned academically today, it suggests with the final letter below dealling with Mary's assumption into heaven, again, a certain veneration that was developing at that time which later developed more into the Church's obvious devotion to her and the other saints in our present day.

I quote from the alledged letter of St. Ignatius, then, one that an alledged response from Mary, the Mother of God. Again, these are the earliest evidences I could find.

From the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I , "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary" and "Reply of the Blessed Virgin to This Letter."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-36.htm

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary

Her friend Ignatius to the Christ-bearing Mary. "Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy [beloved] John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy [son] Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen."

Reply of the Blessed Virgin to This Letter.

"The lowly handmaid of Christ Jesus to Ignatius, her beloved fellow-disciple. The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast in the faith, and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Savior. Amen."

Another later letter that described the dormintion and assumption of the body and soul of the Blessed Virgin into heaven, a Latin document alledgedly penned by Joseph of Arimethea also lended itself strongly to the veneration of Mary and her "intercessory role" as well. Though her intercession is not mentioned, there is a veneration and expectation of her help for us. Again, this is an early document, but prior to the Nicene Council of 325 A.D. It purposrted to be the writing of St. Joseph of Arimethea...

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII , First Latin Form. Concerning the Passing 1 Of the Blessed Virgin Mary. First Latin Form. -------- Concerning the Passing 1 Of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In that time before the Lord came to His passion, and among many words which the mother asked of the Son, she began to ask Him about her own departure.

URL http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-111.htm

"I am Joseph who laid the Lord's body in my sepulchre, and saw Him rising again; and who, before the ascension and after the ascension of the Lord, always kept his most sacred temple the blessed ever-virgin Mary, and who have kept in writing and in my breast the things which came forth from the mouth of God, and how the things mentioned above were done by the judgment of God. And I have made known to all, Jews and Gentiles, those things which I saw with my eyes, and heard with my ears; and as long as I live I shall not cease to declare them. And her, whose assumption is at this day venerated and worshipped throughout the whole world, let us assiduously entreat that she be mindful of us in the presence of her most pious Son in heaven, to whom is praise and glory through endless ages of ages. Amen"

Perhaps, this is not enough to give any definitive [proofs] as such, but, it does reflect some early commentary on a certain veneration and devotion which shows a consistent [if one reads the whole texts found at the URL's] early pattern for the "communion of saints," as recognized in the very Nicene Creed, eventually, from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The concept of "communion of saints" became a declaration of faith, and, reconfirmed ever since at every council, as this Creed IS the Creed for the Faithful at every Mass, when recited. The Apostles' Creed says the same.

Frankly, my faith just accepts the faith the Church teaches and forgets trying to prove it... but, I am exploring this as a matter of apostolate, hoping it adds to the faith of the faithful.

I pray this is helpful.

Br. Ronald Barnabas Anthony, CSAP

Source

9 posted on 08/06/2002 4:17:16 PM PDT by Sock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
I didn't either. And now I will have to rummage through your source! ;)

Madonna in Prayer--Il Sassoferrato

10 posted on 08/06/2002 4:19:10 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sock
I don't think the post was trying to prove anything. It was just interesting and I enjoyed it. =)
11 posted on 08/06/2002 4:27:46 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
I don't believe the original post was trying to prove anything either and I also found it interesting. I found it so interesting that I decieded to research it and his post lead me to (what I believed to be) an interesting follow up post regarding the Assumption. That's why I made my post.

OK? ;-)

12 posted on 08/06/2002 4:39:17 PM PDT by Sock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sock
I had it in my mind from the bottom of the letter that you had an objection to it. Sorry to have offended you, and glad you liked the post.
13 posted on 08/06/2002 4:47:52 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Wonderful post.....thanks for the ping. Praise to our Blessed Mother.

EODGUY
14 posted on 08/06/2002 4:50:08 PM PDT by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sock; JMJ333
I like the addition of the Joseph of Arimethea comment. Thanks!
However, the backhanded aspersion in the post deserves a few comments:

The attribution is to a Br. Ronald Anthony, but a look at the source seems to indicate it was actually authored by a Mr. Ron Curley. With mixed parentage, it's hard to determine believability.

Second, the "alledged" (sic) comment has absolutely no substance behind it. Rather than appealing to anonymous authorities, and thereby passing along innuendo, it would help if original references and commentary were available. We're all aware that it's possible to get an "academic" to cast doubt on virtually any ancient text (especially biblical ones). Right now, I'd have to assign greater credibility to the Early Church Fathers (a 38-volume collection of writings from the first 800 years of the Church). Also, the simplicity and earnestness of the two letters speaks volumes
(to me at least ;-)

Lastly, while I'm sure the good souls at the Legion of St. Michael (an evangelical bible study group?) are well-intentioned, their bona fides appear to be a little thin.

Anyway, thanks again for the post.
15 posted on 08/06/2002 5:50:15 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
However, the backhanded aspersion in the post deserves a few comments:

Backhanded aspersion? What backhanded aspersion?

I am not sure but I guess you are referring to the author/s following comment:

Perhaps, this is not enough to give any definitive [proofs] as such, but, it does reflect some early commentary on a certain veneration and devotion….

Frankly, my faith just accepts the faith the Church teaches and forgets trying to prove it... but, I am exploring this as a matter of apostolate, hoping it adds to the faith of the faithful.

Is there something about the above two comments or others that you object to? He says, “perhaps, this is not enough…[proof].” In the second paragraph he says he accepts “the faith that the Church teaches.” St. Augustine expressed the same faith in the Catholic Church regarding the canon of scripture. Since these letters are not part of the canon, the author is absolutely correct in suggesting this may not be enough to give definitive proof even though they are very interesting to many of us. I don’t believe any Catholic would say that these letters conclusively prove one thing or disprove another. They are not part of the canon.

Lastly, while I'm sure the good souls at the Legion of St. Michael (an evangelical bible study group?) are well-intentioned, their bona fides appear to be a little thin.

I haven't done a complete research on their bona fides. However, perhaps each of us should be careful about casing aspersions on someone before we know for a fact that their bona fides are questionable?

"Our Consecrated Life is guided and inspired by the life and Rule of Saint Benedict and other aspects of eremitical and cenobitic life. Our house is known as a foundation or a monastery. We follow the Evangelical Councils as prescribed by the Rule of Saint Benedict and we submit ourselves to the lawful instructions of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church in faithfulness to our Holy Father, Pope John, II"

Here is the link to the site where Br. Ronald Barnabas Anthony, CSAP/OSB is affiliated and if you search you will find the above quote. His answer to the original question seems perfectly reasonable to me despite the misspellings and the question as to who actually wrote that response. If I kept looking, maybe I could find something questionable on him, but I am not on a witch hunt. I happen to agree with his answer to this one question and, for me, that’s as far as it goes.

Peace

16 posted on 08/06/2002 7:04:58 PM PDT by Sock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Beautiful.
17 posted on 08/06/2002 8:39:18 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sock; JMJ333
Backhanded aspersion? What backhanded aspersion?

Quoting:
"...this letter's authorship is questioned academically today...the alledged letter of St. Ignatius...an alledged response from Mary..."

I suppose you can take issue with my use of the word backhanded...;-)

perhaps each of us should be careful about casing (sic) aspersions on someone

Your mixing apples and oranges here, Sock.

The Legion of St. Michael, the source of your post, is an apologetics web site. Their various background pages seem to describe an origin as a bible study group of both lay people and clergy. The actual "hermitage" is an old house in Roscoe SD, with just Br. Ignatius and a couple cats (aka "sisters") in residence. I don't doubt the difficulties of getting an "experimental, independent, and international prayer and faith covenant community of lay Catholics" off the ground, but this is clearly a low-budget affair. Their intentions are more than likely honorable, but their bona fides (in the area under discussion) are thin.

CSAP (the Community of Saint Anthony of Padua) is located in Stevensville, Montana. (About 1,000 miles away from Roscoe.) They are one of several "Religious Advisors" to LSM. Bro. Ronald Barnabas Anthony as it turns out, is the eponymous Ron Curley, so one mystery solved. He was a pastor at various Baptist and Nazarene churches. His formal religious education is three degrees in Protestant theology from various Protestant colleges, but I recognize and appreciate his recent conversion to Catholicism. Nevertheless, his professional training is not ancient manuscripts, and his prior ministries may (and I only suggest the possibility) have led to an inadvertent bias.

Now, given the above, I think my post urging some caution regarding the characterization of the Mary and Ignatius letters as "alledged" is more than reasonable.

And I thank you again for finding the Joseph of Arimethea comment. It is part of a series of papers, The Passing of Mary, First Latin Form, and Second Latin Form that are found in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. The Arimethea "quote" is the last para from the First Latin Form paper, if you're interested.

Peace,
18 posted on 08/06/2002 9:26:23 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Nevertheless, his professional training is not ancient manuscripts, and his prior ministries may (and I only suggest the possibility) have led to an inadvertent bias.

I don’t have professional training in ancient manuscripts either, yet I agree with his assessment. The material in question is not part of the canon.

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.

47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49
Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name.

50
And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

51
He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.

52
He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.

53
He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.

54
He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy.

55
As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever. (D/R)
By the infallible authority of the Catholic Church at Carthage and again at Carthage confirming the decrees of the Council at Hippo, I and all faithful Christians know that the above words were said by the Mother of God.

"The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast [in the faith], and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Saviour. Amen."

By what authority can you or anyone else say that the above quote was written by the Mother of God? Where is the proof? If you have no proof, then Our Lady's authorship of this quote is an allegation and nothing more. I see no bias in Brother Anthony making such a statement. Plus, this is not the only example of apocryphal writing in the early Christian era. As you know, there are numerous apocrypha letters, acts and gospels that claim to have a sacred origin but they lack genuineness and, like the above letter, canonicity.

The Imitation of Christ has been a favorite book for spiritual reading among Catholics and non Catholics since it first appeared 500 years ago. Nevertheless, I am sure that neither Thomas à Kempis. nor his readers actually believe that Son of God truly said the words attributed to Christ in the book. It is beautiful spiritual literature and a worthwhile guide for all Christians, yet, it not part of the canon.

Incidentally, converts to Catholicism can occasionally get a thing or two correct despite lacking “professional training.” I wouldn’t be so tough on Brother Anthony or his apostolate.

I believe that the most important point in his answer which deserves our attention is the following:

… it suggests with the final letter below dealling with Mary's assumption into heaven, again, a certain veneration that was developing at that time which later developed more into the Church's obvious devotion to her and the other saints in our present day.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, polemikos, and God bless.

19 posted on 08/07/2002 7:03:17 AM PDT by Sock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sock; JMJ333
I don’t have professional training in ancient manuscripts either, yet I agree with his assessment.

In the absence of any supporting material? Well, good luck to you. I happen to own a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you ... ;-)

The material in question is not part of the canon.

I assume you're referring to Scripture here (as 'canon' can have many meanings). You’re making a straw man argument. No one has argued for canonicity, so any conclusion based on the counter-argument is moot.

By what authority can you or anyone else say that the above quote was written by the Mother of God? Where is the proof? If you have no proof, then Our Lady's authorship of this quote is an allegation and nothing more.

I believe there are several logical errors in the above reasoning:

Would you be happy if the Church said (or thought or assumed or considered) it was genuine? The mere fact that it's included in The Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is greater (positive) proof than Bro. Anthony's unsupported (negative) assertion.

You are also confusing canonicity with genuineness. While genuineness is necessary for canonicity, it is not sufficient. A writing can be genuine, but that alone doesn't mean it qualifies for a place in Scripture, agreed? Conversely, just because a writing isn't in Scripture doesn't mean it isn't genuine.

By your logic, virtually all writings of the early Church can't be proven authentic, are therefore of questionable authority, and can safely be ignored. You've just eliminated all the non-scriptural writings of the early church fathers. So much for Church Tradition. (say, by any chance are you Protestant? just wondering ;-)

I see no bias in Brother Anthony making such a statement.

(Ignoring the issue of the adequacy of your senses ;-), Bro. Anthony's statement may or may not be biased. My point is that in the absence of supporting material or authority, the statement can safely be ignored.

Plus, this is not the only example of apocryphal writing in the early Christian era. As you know, there are numerous apocrypha letters, acts and gospels that claim to have a sacred origin but they lack genuineness and, like the above letter, canonicity.

Another straw man argument.

As an aside, genuineness was not the only criteria for placing a writing in Scripture.

The Imitation of Christ has been a favorite book for spiritual reading among Catholics and non Catholics since it first appeared 500 years ago. Nevertheless, I am sure that neither Thomas à Kempis. nor his readers actually believe that Son of God truly said the words attributed to Christ in the book. It is beautiful spiritual literature and a worthwhile guide for all Christians, yet, it not part of the canon.

This is another straw man argument.

Incidentally, converts to Catholicism can occasionally get a thing or two correct despite lacking “professional training.” I wouldn’t be so tough on Brother Anthony or his apostolate.

No doubt Bro. Anthony is more often right than wrong, but again, your making a straw man argument. I said nothing negative about CSAP nor did I say Bro. Anthony was completely wrong. To summarize:
- His negative characterizations were unsupported
- He doesn't have the education to qualify as an authority
- He doesn't have the experience to qualify as an authority
- his religious training has a demonstrable bias in the area under discussion.

Therefore, I wouldn't put any weight on his comments about the "alledged" letters.

God Bless,

p.s., Have we beaten this issue to death yet? ;-)
20 posted on 08/07/2002 10:24:30 AM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
In the absence of any supporting material? Well, good luck to you. I happen to own a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you ... ;-)

Where is your supporting material to PROVE that the document in question is authentic. You accuse me of “straw men” but you have failed to offer ANY proof. If you have it, there should be no problem in showing it.

No one has argued for canonicity, so any conclusion based on the counter-argument is moot.

Clearly, the Church has rejected this letter (and most of the other ancient writings) as part of the Canon of scripture. Once again, I ask you, on what do you base your conclusion that this is an authentic document? Can you show conclusively that the Catholic Church believes that this document is authentic even though it has been rejected as suitable to be included in the canon of scripture? The burden of proof is on you. If you can’t prove it, it remains a letter that is “alleged” to have been written by Mary as Br. Anthony first said.

Would you be happy if the Church said (or thought or assumed or considered) it was genuine?

As a matter of fact, like Augustine who accepted the authenticity of the scriptures based on the authority of the Catholic Church, so do I. Evidently, you don’t feel the same way. Evidently, you feel that you can pick and choose what ought and ought not be regarded as authentic. Are you Protestant? ;-)

The mere fact that it's included in The Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is greater (positive) proof than Bro. Anthony's unsupported (negative) assertion.

Tell me, do you believe in the authenticity of all the apocryphal writings simply because they are anti Nicene? Do you believe in the authenticity of the “Gospel of Thomas” and the “History of Joseph the Carpenter” and The “Gospel of Marcion” and the “Gospel of Philip” and on and on and on?

By your logic, virtually all writings of the early Church can't be proven authentic, are therefore of questionable authority, and can safely be ignored.

By your logic, all the apocrapha is authentic. But, what you are attempting to do is to change my argument. I never said they are to be ignored; I said they are interesting and I will also say that in combination with other writings they have an augmented value for all Christians and, in this case, especially regarding the ancient practice of prayer for the dead and veneration of Mary. However, you are the one who insists that this letter is authentic. Fine, now why don’t you prove it?

Bro. Anthony's statement may or may not be biased. My point is that in the absence of supporting material or authority, the statement can safely be ignored.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you. Bro. Anthony correctly inferred that the authenticity of this letter could not be proved. I accept his statement. Why don’t you prove both Bro. Anthony and me to be incorrect? I will be waiting but not holding my breath.

No doubt Bro. Anthony is more often right than wrong, but again, your making a straw man argument.

I made no straw man argument. I gave you a more recent example of an entire book [The Imitation of Christ] that employs the same literary device as this alleged writing of Mary.

- His negative characterizations were unsupported

It is you who has no proof to support your "positive" contentions. If you do, show it.

- He doesn't have the education to qualify as an authority

Neither do I, but I know for a fact that you have offered NO PROOF to support your belief.

He doesn't have the experience to qualify as an authority

Let’s have your proof. If you have the experience and the education that Bro. Anthony does not, this should present no difficulty for you.

- his religious training has a demonstrable bias in the area under discussion.

Show the proof and I will believe you. After I see your proof, I promise you that, although I don’t know the man, I will email Bro Anthony with your PROOF and I expect that he will believe you also and retract his online statement. Now, there are at least two of us that are waiting for you and possibly many others who read his online Q & A column.

p.s., Have we beaten this issue to death yet? ;-)

This is fun, but, I agree, we have beaten it to death. What’s next? ;-)

God bless

21 posted on 08/07/2002 12:48:17 PM PDT by Sock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sock; JMJ333
Where is your supporting material to PROVE that the document in question is authentic.

Ha ha! Now you're changing the subject, another form of straw man argument. Boy, you really like straw men!

You accuse me of “straw men”

Not at all, just pointing out the obvious ;-)

Clearly, the Church has rejected this letter (and most of the other ancient writings) as part of the Canon of scripture.

"Clearly" you like arguing against straw men.

No one has argued for "canonicity" so your many arguments against the position are moot (i.e., lack relevance or significance).

As yet another aside, you don't appear to understand the criteria the Church used for determining Scripture. Nor do you understand the meaning of "rejection" when applied to canonicity. As I indicated in an earlier post, there's more to canonicity than just "genuineness". (If you ever come across a post discussing canon criteria, please let me know. Development of the principles must have been very interesting.)

...like Augustine who accepted the authenticity of the scriptures based on the authority of the Catholic Church, so do I. Evidently, you don’t feel the same way.

Now you're just being plain silly. I'm responding, not because your point is off topic (which it is), nor because you've rebutted my argument (which you haven't), but because you're seriously misrepresenting what I said. If you want people to play with you, then you ought to play fair.

do you believe in the authenticity of all the apocryphal writings simply because they are anti Nicene?

First you'll have to define "apocryphal" because it has many meanings. And if your argument rests on the definition of apocrypha as "of dubious authenticity" then you're making more logical errors, this time combining a petitio principii error with a prejudicial language fallacy. Your loaded term is begging the question. (But on the plus side, your repertoire of logical fallacies is expanding! ;-)

However, you are the one who insists that this letter is authentic.

Fallacy Alert!!! Fallacy Alert!!!
Mischaracterization Sighted!!!

Actually, the burden of proof is on you.

And I've proven my assertion to the limit of the evidence available, without a single point being directly countered or refuted.

Bro. Anthony correctly inferred that the authenticity of this letter could not be proved.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of 'inference'. In the point at hand, Bro. Anthony simply made an unsubstantiated claim. No inference, correct or otherwise, was involved. (Now you on the other hand ... ;-)

I know for a fact that you have offered NO PROOF to support your belief.

All my proofs are directly from the web sites that either you or I referenced. Since the LSM and CSAP material is hosted by them, I have to assume it is true (for the sake of this argument). However, I am beginning to doubt that you can even identify my (repeatedly posted) assertion. If you can't, I'm spinning my wheels here.

So in summary,
- you've repeatedly misrepresented what I said
- you've repeatedly mischaracterized my arguments
- you've repeatedly raised off-topic arguments
- you've repeatedly made moot points
- you've repeatedly asserted logical fallacies as arguments

Thanks for playing! Better luck next time.
22 posted on 08/07/2002 5:48:28 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Now you're just being plain silly

I'm responding, not because your point is off topic (which it is), nor because you've rebutted my argument (which you haven't), but because you're seriously misrepresenting what I said.

If you want people to play with you, then you ought to play fair.

Fallacy Alert!!! Fallacy Alert!!!

Thanks for playing! Better luck next time.

I must admit, from your bio page, I expected more from you:

polemikos: from the Greek polemik(ós) meaning 'of or for war' or 'warlike'. Origin of 'polemic,' the art of disputation, an aggressive attack on the opinions of another.

Bwaaaahahahahaha!

You’re a prideful little child who has just been checkmated. Read the following material from the Catholic Encyclopedia and weep, Oh Great One!

I have no doubt that you will call into question the nefarious plot of the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding this subject or perhaps the author or even the evil Jesuit who transcribed this piece, but nevertheless, I’ve wasted too much time with you already. We are done.

"Also there are three letters extant only in Latin. Two of the three purport to be from Ignatius to St. John the Apostle, and one to the Blessed Virgin, with her reply to the same. These are probably of Western origin, dating no further back than the twelfth century."

Click here, Little Man

23 posted on 08/07/2002 6:21:43 PM PDT by Sock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sock
Well, touché

I'm always willing to yield to the better argument. If this had been included in the original CSAP post, all this could have been avoided.

However, your demeanor in the face of apparent victory speaks volumes of your "class".
24 posted on 08/07/2002 7:16:51 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
However, your demeanor in the face of apparent victory speaks volumes of your "class".

How graceful you are in defeat, Mr. Debater.

ba-bye

25 posted on 08/07/2002 7:20:50 PM PDT by Sock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Lady In Blue
Nevermind! The flame war overshadows the example. My apologies.
26 posted on 08/07/2002 8:05:27 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
God love you!
27 posted on 08/07/2002 9:42:08 PM PDT by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson