You are on your way to indicting yourself.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine..
The problem is that this quote is clearly taken out of context because the very sentence before the quote is: “And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive...”
This EXACT theme, “that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive” is already highlighted on roman numeral page XXI of the same book (edition = London: Longmans, 1865). You are entirely unfamiliar with the book and its contents aren’t you?
"Clearly taken out of context"? What in the world are you protesting in Roman reactionary reflex? You seem to think that if a Prot .quotes only part of a text (for brevity sake, as i did) then you must be dishonest if it is used against Rome. Yet here Manning is contending that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive, which claim the Reformers examined and found wanting, and the recourse of Manning was to essentially claim that antiquity is what Rome says it is, which is what i invoked it for.
Nor does it surprise me that daniel1212 apparently never bothered to compare it to the original and has now posted it here.....What website did you lift the quote from without checking to see if it was even genuine or properly quoted?
I certainly did compared it to ensure it was teaching in context what i claimed, and you are wrong for asserting otherwise. For i have quoted this text numerous times on FR and often included the link, which is not some anti-Catholic (though anything that contains anything that impugns Rome is labeled such) we site, but the actual book as found on http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt
...End paste of the actual quote rather than the deceptively edited Protestant anti-Catholic version. Thus, we can see once again how Protestant commonly misrepresent things by falsely editing quotes.
Thus, we can see??? Falsely editing quotes???" What we see is what loyalty to Rome can do. Vladimir, there is NOTHING in the quote you provided which teaches anything different than what i invoked it for!!! Manning claims the Church is its own interpreter of its history, thus in a real sense it has no antiquity as it "rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it..." Therefore the Reformers cannot be right.
But it is you who has erred in false charging me with dishonesty and false editing or being stupid, which is not the first time RCs has resorted to slander here and been exposed. It seems that some simply cannot allow anything that even seems to impugn Rome and so must resort to slander.
End paste of the original quote untouched by the deceitful hands of Protestant anti-Catholics.
posted here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/08/canon-as-infallible-sacred-tradition.html It is obvious that you took the quote - deceptively quoted - from Beggars All, or a website that used the same deceptively edited quote, and that you accidentally cut the ““...in” from the beginning of the quote.
That is simply absurd, as "in all cases" does not change the meaning of the text in support of what i invoked it for, that the RC assurance of doctrine rests upon Rome's claim to veracity, and if anything, "in all cases" supports this. And i also only provided the link to the actual source thus you could read it!
Once again you are simply protesting against something that impugns Rome, while the fuller context does nothing to refute that. Newman is dealing with to the formal Definitions of the Church and to the exercise of logical and methodical reasoning by which to arrive at some conclusions ("What has been said of History in relation to the formal Definitions of the Church, applies also to the exercise of Ratiocination"), for he confesses that "no doctrine of the Church can be rigorously proved [or disproved] by historical evidence" and proceeds to state that
"in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent."
If you protest this then you must argue that "the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them" only applies to some doctrines, meaning they are to objectively search for evidence of some doctrines to determine their veracity, which would make them as an evangelical.
But while it is affirmed by Catholics that this means of ascertaining truth is valid in (fallibly) deciding to submit to the infallible authority of Rome, once he does so he is exhorted to simply implicitly trust Rome, as these approved writings state (and these excerpts are consistent with the context), consistent with Newman,
But mark well: having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation? Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. "Be convinced," says Cardinal Newman in his great sermon, "Faith and Doubt"-----"be convinced in your reason that the Catholic Church is a teacher sent to you from God, and it is enough."
Protestants seem to imagine that strength of mind consists in criticizing and disputing Christian doctrine. Catholics, on the other hand, think that true nobility of soul and greatness of mind are evidenced chiefly in believing mysteries above our capacity simply because the Church enunciates them to us; in thinking as she thinks, accepting what she accepts, and rejecting what she rejects.
He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church [infallibly at least] as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips. —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
Thus once again, there is nothing in the larger quote (and RC complain my posts are too long) that is contrary to what i invoked the quote in support of, while your reaction is slander.
Sometimes I’m not sure what is worse - that Protestant anti-Catholics are stupid or that they are deceptive. It has to be the deceptive part because that tends toward sinfulness. Stupidity is perhaps blameless.
I am sure what is worse, that of RCs who are so blindly devoted to defending Rome against anything that disturbs their cherished view of the object of their devotion that they must charge anyone who exposes it as being deceptive or stupid, but in so doing they indict themselves and provide an arguments against Rome.
This is not the first time this has happened, as RCs see what they want in both Scripture and elsewhere, and an apology is in order, but i have yet to see one.
WOW, I read Vlads screed and thought to myself, What is he talking about?
Baseless charge. Loyola would be proud.
“And from this a fourth truth immediately follows,
that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are
primitive.”
That’s what you left out of the Manning quote - or actually the person from whom you cut and pasted it from left it out - and it changes the entire sense of the passage. Case closed.
I know you quoted this often on FR. And it was taken out of context at FR before by you.
“Manning claims the Church is its own interpreter of its history, thus in a real sense it has no antiquity...”
What Manning said FIRST is: “And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive.” Thus, you are claiming Manning said there was no antiquity to the Church when he in fact just got done saying the Church’s teachings were primitive. The proper understanding of the passage is only possible if the reader has both of those points. You listed only the latter. Therefore, the passage - as you posted it - is out of context.
And I was right about the Newman quote too.
It is MUCH worse to be a blind follower of a religious institution that has as its primary demand to the "faithful" to leave reason at the door and just swallow whatever you are told as if Jesus, Himself, were speaking to you. I praise the Lord that He answered my diligent search for the truth by showing me by His holy word what the TRUE gospel of the grace of God was and rescued me from the false religious system that preached an accursed gospel.
This is not the first time this has happened, as RCs see what they want in both Scripture and elsewhere, and an apology is in order, but i have yet to see one.
I'd say don't hold your breath. Rarely does anyone see any effort towards speaking the truth in love and respect from certain people much less apologies when false accusations are made or when a broad brush is used to impugn and insult all those not in the same religion. The silver lining is that objective lurkers will see the contrast between abject nastiness because one has no better argument and those who sincerely put forth efforts to back up what they say with research and who present it without the accompanying viciousness and snark. Believe me, people DO notice and we shouldn't forget our obligation to the Lord to speak as we would have others speak to us. I appreciate the work you put into your posts.