Don't play games. The links for ECF's have already been posted. What is your motive to post them again almost FOUR YEARS later (since the last post here) from a site that is anti-Catholic and one of their agendas is to get Catholics to leave their Faith.

Your version of the 'truth' is offensive.


SV

I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You should try to be more objective.

This ain't my first rodeo. I suggest you read the board rules again and try to be respectful of your environment. You don't go into someone's home and do offensive things.


SV

What is she not being objective about? What is the allegedly non-objective element in her post?

What is the baby she's throwing out? The quotations from the Fathers? How is she throwing them out, if she's got access to them elsewhere?

Why is it difficult to understand that links to venomously anti-Catholic sites like CARM are unwelcome here? Do you have some Jack Chick tracts you'd like to post here too, while you're at it?

I wouldn't compare Chick to a page linking a bunch of ECF writings compiled without commentary. But if you want to make that comparison, not much I can do about it.

I wouldn't compare Chick to a page linking a bunch of ECF writings compiled without commentary. But if you want to make that comparison, not much I can do about it.[/quote]
I'm comparing the viciously anti-Catholic CARM site as a whole to Chick, and that's basically a sound comparison, though perhaps a bit uncharitable to Chick, who at least has an 6th grade level facility for drawing cartoons.

Anyway, that comparison was really not the point of my post. As anyone who read my post would know, its point was to indicate the fact that your response to SV was wholly confused. And there's apparently not much I can do about the fact that you are ignoring the point of my post.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/

There's a better link. I don't think anybody around here is going to be too keen on going to Carm for ANYTHING. If the truth is all you're after and you like ECF writings, well then the link I posted above should keep you busy for a year or two.

I'm comparing the viciously anti-Catholic CARM site as a whole to Chick, and that's basically a sound comparison, though perhaps a bit uncharitable to Chick, who at least has an 6th grade level facility for drawing cartoons.

Anyway, that comparison was really not the point of my post. As anyone who read my post would know, its point was to indicate the fact that your response to SV was wholly confused. And there's apparently not much I can do about the fact that you are ignoring the point of my post. [/quote]


I realize this is most certainly not the thread to do it, and I don't want to hijack this thread, but would it be proper to have a discussion anywhere in this forum regarding the accuracy of CARM's documentation/writings? I'd love to see an explanation of how a catholic would determine the site to be incorrect of its examination of catholicism. If it falls short in any areas, I would appreciate being corrected in my understanding.

Start a thread in apologetics, maybe. We've got some CARM veterans here from way back. I myself never had the stomach for their particular brand of vicious anti-Catholicism.

I was about to say start a thread in the Apologetics subforum, like gherkin mentioned.

In my experience with the folks at CARM, they often leave out key elements of the writings of the Fathers. The Fathers were Catholic. Their writings belong to the Catholic Church. If you want to quote them, use Catholic sources, not CARM.

In my experience with catholic apologists, I often see them leaving out key elements of the writings of the Fathers. Are you not willing to look at ALL of what they have to say on an issue, or just the ones you agree with?

In any event, I'm sorry...I don't mean to get into an argument on a thread that you obviously have stickied to help others on the forum. Please forgive me for stepping on toes, and feel free to delete my posts. I shouldn't have posted it here.

I doubt very seriously that you see Catholics omitting anything key from their discussions of the ECFs. Again, the ECFs were Catholic. Their writings belong to the Catholic Church.

I doubt he even knows enough about the ECF's to be able to tell if something was omitted or not...the writings of the ECF's are massive and voluminous, becoming an expert in them is not the work of summer's day...reading the Fathers is not like reading, say, Harry Potter, one cannot simply sit down and read from beginning to end and actually understood what he read...

Time for you to back up your claims. No...they weren't. You made the claim. Back it up please.

Many of them were bishops, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna.

I hereby nominate this thread for a pruning. I think that it should be split into a new thread where this discussion can be continued separate from the prior postings.

Sigh.....you really think that simply saying 'nuh-huh' constitutes a rational argument?

Note that he has yet to back up one single claim of his.

He seems to think that simply saying 'I'm right, you're wrong' is a valid argument.