church writings

[dairygirl4u2c]

Yea I pretty much have decided I am going to have to have an extended stay in Rome someday and see what they'll let me scrummage thorough..

I would like to research:
Pope Stephan I: the writings from him I'm pretty sure it said at newadvent were gone. i don't think new advent metions this sort of enough, but I'm glad it did here. I do find it interesting that Cyprian who was not a pope has his writings preserved. (but these I admit were probably not in rome which was sacked)

Pope Victor I

Innocent III and Eugene ? from the other thread on salvation outside the CC. More than just the writings in which the controversial writings were. These men were fairly recent and you'd think you could find them. I want them because I want to see their mindset in general.

Writings from Edessa. This is a whole n'other issue that I haven't brough to the light of phatmass yet. This website claims it formed somewhat independant from the CC. Yet newadvent does mention the CC bishop eventually going there. I'd like writings from before the bishops went and after christianity first started. Tho I did admit that even if they were not followers of the pope, maybe they didn't know they should be. I do find it interesting that this writer just calls the CC an amalgamation without really justifying it (tho granted it isn't the point of the website):
[url="http://www.ntcanon.org/Edessa.shtml"]http://www.ntcanon.org/Edessa.shtml[/url]
so as that website indicates, this guy was from there, so maybe stuff from him:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14464b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14464b.htm[/url]

Now that I think about it, I'd also like to research Gregory the Great, but I haven't started yet, so I'm not sure what I can find.

There's also a guy from recent times, who is said to have been controversial because rumors spread that he was beginning to spread a heresy but was killed or died first or something...
i forget his name...
(not that one before PJII I think early 1900's tho I'll have to ask my friend)


Writings from other people bishops etc closely related to these men would be beneficial too. Does anyone ever read or do they preserve the writings of many bishops? I'm sure they do for portant stuff, but beyond that I gues.

Edited August 10, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

Here's what you do: learn like at least 10 languages, get a bunch of PhD's, become an internationally renowned researcher, and you'll be let in to study the Secret (Private) Archives of the Vatican. lol... then you can find every single thing in the last 1000 years. They don't just let any random person go in to attempt to twist stuff though, though they do allow non-Catholics you just need the credentials.

The Secret Archives have every correspondence between the Vatican and anyone in the world that the Vatican talked to.


anyway, Eugene IV didn't do much writing other than the bulls he wrote for the Council of Florence. You'll see I provided his Bull of Union with the Copts that you were searching for. I since actually found that on the web (but I typed the whole thing out for you from my book first) [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM[/url]
Session 11 is where that bull is.

Pope Innocent III was pretty busy with the Fourth Lateran Council if memory serves, so the documents of that council will reflect the mind of that pope.

from my book of all the concils of the Church in its intro to Lateran IV: "The council may therefore be regarded as a great summary of the pontiff's (Innocent III) work and also as his greatest initiative. Hew as not able, however, to bring it to completion since he died shortly afterwards..."

anyway, I think I need to give you these links again:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chalcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinope II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinope III[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm"]Constantinople IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum09.htm"]Lateran I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum10.htm"]Lateran II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum11.htm"]Lateran III[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm"]Lateran IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum13.htm"]Lyons I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum15.htm"]Council of Vienne[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm"]Council of Constance[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm"]Council of Basle[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm"]Lateran V[/url]
[url="http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html"]Council of Trent[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm"]Vatican I[/url]
[url="http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/index.html"]Vatican II[/url]

then you got [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net[/url]
the popes not on there generally were too busy with councils so you'd use the councils documents to see their work or they weren't writing

Pope St. Victor I according Jerome wrote about theology in Latin and changed the liturgy from Greek to Latin but that's second century so don't expect to be able to find his writings very easily.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, not to get sidetracked, but that Titan guy from Edessa did listen to Justin Martyr. I remember thinking some people said he had like a Lutheran idea of what the Eucharist was, I'll have to search that out to see what it was more precisely.

I don't even think he mentioned much of anything about the papacy, or more like the position was more thought of and called, the bishop of rome..
thanx for the linx

and in case anyone's keeping up with my research:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05412c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05412c.htm[/url]

it mentions he was puffed up on his own arrogance. the way the site made him out in his bio link, he really hated matter and was very tempermental. i think figuring out if he was what he's made out to be would require that his writings be made known/read other than a third person impression..

Edited August 10, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

hmm... better resources than google include:
[url="http://www.ccel.org/"]Christian Classics Ethereal Library[/url]

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html"]Internet Medieval Sourcebook[/url]

I donno if that'll help you find the stuff you're looking for... but it's got full text from medieval times and stuff like that...

I really don't know where you'd find stuff from this Edessa place though...

[thessalonian]

Your poll is silly. As usual.

[Winchester]

Why are we testing only the Roman Rite?

Do you like the Ukrainian, or the Melkite better?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Your poll is silly. As usual. [/quote]
You could at leat elaborate on why it's silly...
I can see a couple reasons but.. i should have asked "how often.. do you have trouble etc" or something like that.
And at least I'm tryin to make polls and doin better than many.. I'd like to see you make one.. at least one..
maybe even show me how to make this poll better...
but of course you'll be open to criticism, and you will be intellectually criticized, so I doubt you'll do it...

Edited August 11, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 11 2005, 12:18 PM']You could at leat elaborate on why it's silly...
I can see a couple reasons but.. i should have asked "how often.. do you have trouble etc" or something like that.
And at least I'm tryin to make polls and doin better than many.. I'd like to see you make one.. at least one..
maybe even show me how to make this poll better...
but of course you'll be open to criticism, and you will be intellectually criticized, so I doubt you'll do it...
[right][snapback]681999[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm afraid of criticism? You haven't seen me on Protestant boards have you. As for intellect, I recommend you don't get in to comments in that area.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]As for intellect, I recommend you don't get in to comments in that area. [/quote]

All I am saying is that you must not like criticism as you often post short criticisms and don't elaborate, at least for me. I'm sure you'd say you don't have time, want to waste time, or might even claim you're wasting your time on me.
You'd rather spend time with the ignorant protestants. Maybe you justify it to yourself that you're planting a seed; I'm sure you are. But doesn't it strike you as shallow when protestants convert simply because the extremely wrong surface impressions they had didn't hold up, and they simply didn't have the depth to probe deeper than what apolgetics such as yourself feed them? When you realize that catholics become protestants everyday just as fast, you begin to realize the shallowness of your apologetical endeavors. True, many of the Catholics who convert away are swept up in emotion and ignorant, but don't be so arrogant as to think that there aren't honest, intellectual protestants out there much smarter than the both of us who know everything you're going to feed them, but can still stand on their own protestant leg.
Maybe if you'd take the time to respond to more intellectual questions other than planning your next catholic apologetical, you'd open a few new horizans yourself. Maybe you could at least realize the limits of your faith and/or better yet to be intellectually honest enough to admit them once in awhile. Then I'd truly respect you beyond simply just another run of the mill admittedly sharp theologian who knows their side well.. and as someone who knows what they're talking about. As much as you tout your side just like everyone else and don't admit the limits of what you can and/or do know, I have no choice but to think you don't know the arguments against you. If you changed your style, I'd truly consider you an intellectual as well.

I'd take you on intellectually anyday.

Edited August 13, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

you all are too much sometimes.. hehe

it would be fun to have one on one show downs.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 12 2005, 08:20 PM']All I am saying is that you must not like criticism as you often post short criticisms and don't elaborate, at least for me. I'm sure you'd say you don't have time, want to waste time, or might even claim you're wasting your time on me.
You'd rather spend time with the ignorant protestants. Maybe you justify it to yourself that you're planting a seed; I'm sure you are. But doesn't it strike you as shallow when protestants convert simply because the extremely wrong surface impressions they had didn't hold up, and they simply didn't have the depth to probe deeper than what apolgetics such as yourself feed them? When you realize that catholics become protestants everyday just as fast, you begin to realize the shallowness of your apologetical endeavors. True, many of the Catholics who convert away are swept up in emotion and ignorant, but don't be so arrogant as to think that there aren't honest, intellectual protestants out there much smarter than the both of us who know everything you're going to feed them, but can still stand on their own protestant leg. 
Maybe if you'd take the time to respond to more intellectual questions other than planning your next catholic apologetical, you'd open a few new horizans yourself. Maybe you could at least realize the limits of your faith and/or better yet to be intellectually honest enough to admit them once in awhile. Then I'd truly respect you beyond simply just another run of the mill admittedly sharp theologian who knows their side well.. and as someone who knows what they're talking about. As much as you tout your side just like everyone else and don't admit the limits of what you can and/or do know, I have no choice but to think you don't know the arguments against you. If you changed your style, I'd truly consider you an intellectual as well. 

I'd take you on intellectually anyday.
[right][snapback]683603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[color=red] Did you miss the part where you were asked to edit the question of this thread? [/color]

[Myles Domini]

Dairy girl I am not familar with the writings of the Church of Edessa either and quite sketchy on the ante-Nicene's actually minus the very big ones e.g. St Ignatius of Antioch. However, I fail to see the need to go sifting through the non-major writers either. For instance say Titian did have a Lutheran view of the Eucharist, what would that mean? St Justin Martyr, for example, taught a platonist doctrine of creation with God as demiurge and not the creatio ex nihilo we're all used to. But again, so what? Origen taught that people in hell can be freed from their damnation. Again, so what? The fact of the matter is that the individual writers are not the voice of tradition. That being said they may well bare witness to tradition but at the same time they may well not e.g. Marcion and Valentinian. In order to prove themselves they need a credible witness to corroborate what they are saying and that witness is the Church.

[i]Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.[/i]--Adv.Her.III.3.2

Without the Church to bare witness to the testimony of the early writers as being in line with the traditions they recieved from the Apostles whatever they may or may not write means nothing. Take for instance the case of the gospels. How do we know that the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the real Acts of Sts Peter and Paul, and the protoevangelium of James should not be in Sacred Scripture? I mean some of them contain Catholic teachings. The last two for instance tell us that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome and that the Virgin Mary was from a young age completely consecrated to God and never once broke her vow of perpetual chastity. Why are these not in the canon then? The answer is that the only witness who could corroborate the content of those gospels deemed them as not having Divine Inspiration regardless of whatever goods could be found in them, some of which as I've said can actually vouched for by the Church's tradition.

The Church is the court of arbitration, she is the one who binds and looses, she is as St Irenaeus points out the definitive witness to what was taught by the foremost apostles and as such she can judge whether what individual members of the mystical body teach are in line with the apostolical teaching. I may like St Augustine but I cannot insist that those aspects of Augustine's teaching moderated by the Council of Orange in the 6th century are correct against the witness of the Church. Because the Church as an institution, as a whole, as a body, she is the oldest witness to these events. All the literature grows from her not the other way around. By apostolic succession she can claim eye witness status and as such she can tell me which parts of Augustine to accept and which parts to be weary about and I cant like Jean Calvin or Cornelius Jansen try to tell her otherwise.

Perhaps a lot of us are ignorant Catholics who dont bother to investigate our faith and I admit we would do well to know a little more. However, its not strictly neccessary to go as far back to Roman Edessa to apprehend the faith. Because we have eye witness testimony from the foremost apostles, because she was there she thus cannot err. She saw it, she lived it, she experienced the glory of God made man and she testifies to it. As the foremost eye witness hers is the most credible testimony and it is thus to her that we give the most weight when she tells us what we should and shouldn't believe. Indeed, it is no surprise thus that many of the decrees of Trent were ratified at the extraordinary pan-Orthodox synods of the 17th century. Indeed, it was at the pan-Orthodox synod of Jerusalem in 1672 where the Greek equivalent for transubstantiation, metamorphosis was adopted which is crucial to our debate because by that time the Orthodox were well aware of Protestant teaching on the matter (one patriarch of Constantinople even lost his throne for Calvinism) and they rejected it definatively as not encapsulating what they believed about the Eucharist.

The voice of one Edessan cannot drown out the voices of both the Latin and Greek churches at large, particularly that of the See of St Peter. The members of the Church must prove themselves to her, it is not for the Church to prove herself to them.

[thessalonian]

Dairy,

In case you missed it, I could care less if anyone considers me an intellectual or anything else. Enjoy your polls.

Edited August 15, 2005 by thessalonian