TheHolyBookEnds
Well-Known Member
I meant what I said, and my statement refers to all that I have cited, not merely the citation from NewAdvent in regards "most latin fathers". You have misread my statement. I cannot help that. Read more carefully, and do not assume more than what is stated.Hmmmm......so when you said, "I read every thing in full, where possible" and that you "read as much as is possible.." that really means that you "read all of it" ?? A bit confusing to me but I digress!!!
The citation in regards "most latin fathers" was a full citation, since explantions 1, 3, & 4 which surround explanation 2 are independent of it. That you cited explanation 1 & 2, leaving 3 and 4, does not give any further context to explanation 2, when it reads "most latin fathers", since in explanation 1, it references only "(Grimm, Simar)." 2 Persons which differ in understanding from "most latin fathers", explanation 2. The same goes for explanations 3 & 4 in regards explanation 2. Explanation 3 gives as references a vague "Protestant theologians living after the seventeenth century).", which means absolutely nothing, since true Protestant reformers "all" identified the Papacy as the AntiChrist, and many of which were former Roman Catholics themselves, being scholars, priests, etc., beforehand. Any other "portestant theology" is mistaken or a Jesuit co-adjutor, or a plain ol' Jesuit, pretending to be protestant. Examples may include Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot, Tregelles, etc. Explanation 4 simply references "(Döllinger)." A single man, a "(28 February 1799 – 14 January 1890)" (WikiP) a german Catholic priest who wrote well after all the so-called "most latin fathers" wrote.You did not give context.
No, it is simply citing the other explanation 1, in addition to explantion 2. Explanation 1, is not actually necessary to cite Explanation 2, or 3 or 4.Post #249 is context.
You are in error once again.
I am beginning to realize something about you also.I realize now that you did not give YOUR opinion.
I do not know what you refer to, and until you demonstrate it, it is simply an accusation (and unfounded at that no matter what you cite, since as I have stated, I have done my own homework, and cite as much of quotation source material as is possible).You cut and pasted someone else's.....
It is, since it is a incorrect accusation.Once again, no big deal,
You admit yours, but I do not so grant any such thing in regards the sources under question.I have done the same thing.
What are you referring to please?HOWEVER when you cut and paste someone else's opinion you own it.
I cited Tertullian directly from NewAdvent.org. Nothing was out of context and cited in full relevant part. I even gave you two other sources on Tertullian, the one from CCEL, which you asked me for, and original Latin text. As for the "most latin fathers" citation, this too was in full relevant part, nothing out of context or mis-cited, or mis-applied. I stated on several occasions now, that those citations mean what they say, nothing more, nothing less. You have added to my replies, something which is simply not there.The originator of your opinion took the writings of Tertullian out of context and you parroted them.
Can discuss what you will, since they are in context, and not deceiving at all, since they state what they state and nothing more and nothing less. You are adding to my response and then accusing me of an idea of that which you yourself added.Are you ok with us discussing the other quotes you posted??? I have some issues with them since they are also out of context and deceiving. :)
Last edited: