“Well, then it would not be hard to show in what way he is, right?”
It’s not hard at all, Webster was once Catholic and has walked away from Christ in the Eucharist(Body, Blood Soul and Divinity) and now he makes money attacking the Catholic Church denying Christ is present in the Eucharist and spinning the writing of the Church Fathers whenever they did not use the exact words that was could have been easily been errors by Philip Schaff in translation purposely to mislead people. I have translated writings of the Early Church Fathers on disk translated from Greek given to me by Kolokotronis (who used to post here on FR) that don’t match Philp Schaff CCEl site.
Webster looks for one or two single instances that don’t match 99% of what the early Church Fathers taught and implies they held beliefs contrary to their consistent beliefs shown in their writings.
I suggest you read about the New Age Philip Schaff
here is some information about him in this article
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/HazMat/H-pp_157-202_Chapter_7_Strong_Delusion-James_Strongs_Dang.pdf
Don’t be fooled by following the cult of William Webster,dear friend. Webster will have to answer for the evil he is doing.
From the word of the late Bishop Fulton Sheen....
Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven
The devil can be seen using those like Webster who mislead others by saying he is doing the work of God while attacking Christ’s Church and The Most Blessed Sacrament
You seem to be hiding behind links and not directly answering my question.
I want YOU to show me in what way, Webster’s citations are wrong.
BTW, if denying that Christ is being sacrificed in the Eucharist belongs to the tool of the devil, you are effectively condemning EVERYONE who denies it as complicit with the devil ( that would include many FReepers ).
Show me the translated writings that you believe in for instance. Let’s start with Augustine, and yes, you can use the disk that you have and cut and paste for me the passages that show that Augustine believes that Peter is the Pope.
Don’t show me links written by Roman Catholics attacking Webster. DEAL WITH HIS ARGUMENTS.
I don’t intend to be fooled by anyone dear friend, not even from someone as well meaning as you.
I reserve the right ( given to me by God ) to judge arguments for myself.
So yes, let’s start with Augustine as the church father to look at, so that we can limit our area of focus.
RE: The devil can be seen using those like Webster who mislead others by saying he is doing the work of God while attacking Christ’s Church and The Most Blessed Sacrament
But the devil can also use well meaning people too. You know the adage, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
We can only discern whose side the devils and who side isn’t by looking at the arguments. Start with Augustine then.
In fact, let’s focus on one part of his writings to make it even more specific so that we don’t get overwhelmed by his humongous pages of work -— HIS EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 16 to determine whether Peter is the Rock being referred to.
You can cut and paste the translation you trust.
RE: I have translated writings of the Early Church Fathers on disk translated from Greek given to me by Kolokotronis (who used to post here on FR) that don’t match Philp Schaff CCEl site.
Here’s a question for you — WHY IS THE TRANSLATION GIVEN BY KOLKOTRONIS’ right and Schaff’s wrong?
And why should one believe the attacks on Philip Schaff’s motives?
And please don’t give me a reason of this form : Because Philip Schaff is not Roman Catholic and Kolkotronis is.
That is not an acceptable reason.
I want an objective reason for doubting the correctness of Philip Schaff’s translation.