![\"Chaos2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/04\/Chaos2.png\")
<\/div>\n\n***<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[In fact, St. Clement of Rome described an extra-biblical book as \u201cScripture\u201d (I assume he would hold that the Bible was \u201cpassed down from the Apostles\u201d and that Bishop White would grant the point). In his Letter to the Corinthians<\/i> (aka First Clement), dated 95-96 A.D., he writes (23:3):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Let this Scripture be far from us where he says . . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n Then he proceeds to cite a passage which is not<\/b> in present-day Scripture (it is also cited in 2 Clement 11:2-4 \u2013 not considered to have been written by St. Clement, but perhaps the oldest Christian sermon extant: c. 100 A.D. -, where it is described as \u201cthe prophetic word\u201d). The famous Protestant scholar J.B. Lightfoot speculated that it was from the lost book of Eldad and Modat mentioned by Hermas (Vis. 2.3.4). *<\/p>\n There are indeed traces of the recognition of an authoritative Apostolic doctrine in Justin, but it cannot be affirmed from the form of his language that he looked upon this as contained in a written New Testament.<\/span> *<\/p>\n I assume, then, you are not familiar with this particular issue? Okay, then let us use another example. Basil said that it was an apostolic tradition to baptize three times, facing east, forward. Upon what basis do you reject his testimony, if you do?<\/span> *<\/p>\n So Bishop White offers one western father (who held a quite \u201cmild\u201d opinion on the subject \u2013 not exactly a spectacular, bold dissent), and another in his heretical period, plus four eastern fathers (which I was already generally aware of \u2013 one always finds exceptions to the rule). This is what he considers a \u201cpatristic consensus.\u201d I consider it a pathetic argument. Ludwig Ott states that the western patristic consensus was \u201cunanimous.\u201d Thus, Bishop<\/span> White is trapped by the facts of history, not any rhetorical brilliance on my part. ]<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n Yes, two.<\/span> As for Church Fathers who refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New Eve<\/i> (Eve was originally sinless or immaculate), Second Eve<\/i>, sinless<\/i>, spotless<\/i>, pure<\/i>, without stain<\/i>, immaculate<\/i>, the Ark of the Covenant<\/i>, or (negatively) who never attributed any actual sin to her, we find the following:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Jerome, Eusebius, Ephraim, Ambrose, Augustine, Proclus, Theodotus, Peter Chrysologus, Andrew of Crete, Fulgentius, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Germanus, John Damascene.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That makes at least 22 fathers in the affirmative, compared to 5 who attributed sin to Mary (not counting the Montanist heretic Tertullian).]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n * Sure enough, <\/span>The Flesh of Christ <\/i>(dated 208-212 A.D.) is from Tertullian\u2019s semi-Montanist period. Protestants often fail to note the different theological periods with regard to citing Tertullian. Many will conveniently ignore this if a Tertullian quote suits their purpose (or else some are ignorant of the dating and\/or of his later heresy altogether).<\/span> Whichever the case with Bishop White, he failed to answer my question during the dialogue, thus illustrating another reason why these<\/span> clarifying notes are important and useful.<\/span> What I suspected turned out to be true. Whether<\/span> Bishop<\/span> White knew this beforehand or not, we don\u2019t know, as he didn\u2019t say.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n
\n*
\nAny citation, in fact, of a book as Scripture, whether it was or not<\/span>, is an \u201cextra-biblical tradition\u201d since the biblical books (as decided by the Church and tradition) never list the books. White surely should have known this. But he wants to pass off this nonsense that Irenaeus thinking Jesus lived to fifty is the <\/span>\u201cearliest reference in all patristic<\/span> writing to something \u2018passed down from the Apostles\u2019 that is not in Scripture<\/span><\/span><\/span>.\u201d It\u2019s not so. The tradition of the biblical canon itself disproves it.
\n*
\nFurthermore, Clement teaches apostolic succession in 42:1-4 and 44:1-4 (\u201cOur apostles . . . gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men
\nshould succeed to their ministry . . .\u201d), a notion that White rejects and regards as unbiblical.<\/span>Finally, according to the eminent 19th-century Protestant patristics scholar Brooke Foss Westcott, there is some indication in Justin Martyr (100-165) of acceptance of an apostolic Tradition, including an <\/span>oral component. After an exhaustive, remarkable 75-page exposition of Justin\u2019s understanding of the canon of the New Testament. Westcott concludes:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n*
\n(<\/span>A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament<\/span>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980, from the 1889 sixth edition, 172) ]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n*
\n[again, I could hardly answer on the spot, completely unprepared, not even knowing this exchange was gonna take place. I had prepared myself to debate someone else. But note how White uses the \u201crapid-fire\u201d approach. It\u2019s the illusion of appearance of strength via mere method: one of the oldest tricks of sophistry in the book. This is the second thing he quickly introduces. Then he introduces a third: whether Mary sinned]<\/span>
\n*
\nPatristic consensus over what period of time? For example, the \u201cpatristic consensus\u201d through the end of the fourth century was that Mary had committed acts of sin. That is no longer <\/span>the \u201cview\u201d taken by Rome.<\/span>
\n*
\n[this is sheer nonsense (the second sentence above), as I will proceed to show, even on the spot, because it is so outrageously false]<\/span>
\n*
\nThe patristic period is generally considered to go up to John Damascene, no?<\/span>
\n*
\nThat all depends. :-)<\/span>
\n*
\n[I don\u2019t know what White thinks it \u201cdepends\u201d on. According to <\/span>The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church<\/span> (p. 504): \u201cthe patristic period is generally held to be closed with St. Isidore of Seville in the West and St. John of Damascus in the East.\u201d White likes historian Philip Schaff, who described John Damascene as the \u201clast of the Greek Fathers\u201d (<\/span>History of the Christian Church<\/span>, Vol. IV: Chapter 14, section 144, p. 626). So why does he question (and \u201csmile\u201d about) this assumption of mine?]<\/span>
\n*
\nNo; some Fathers thought she sinned, but I don\u2019t believe they were the majority, by any means.<\/span>
\n*
\n[I was absolutely correct]<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span>*
\nWould it follow, then, that you believe the \u201cpatristic consensus\u201d up through John Damascene supports such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption?<\/span>
\n*
\n[Note the sophistical topic-switching again. This is quite clever, albeit cynically transparent to anyone who understands rhetoric and debate. Having already introduced his third topic in about as many minutes: the actual sin of Mary and what Church fathers held on that, and having introduced a false summary of patristic views on that score, he now shifts to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption: the first being a greatly advanced development of the sinlessness of Mary and the second being another doctrine altogether. I\u2019m now supposed to discuss \u2014 without notes and preparation \u2014 now, <\/span>five<\/span> relatively complex topics at once?]<\/span><\/span>
\n*
\nCan you name 5 or 10 who thought that?<\/span>
\n*
\n[I was still referring to the previous \u201csins of Mary\u201d question. White would fire out a new question (like having 15 peas in a pea shooter) before I barely answered his last one. Anyone can see the foolishness of such a juvenile method of supposedly \u201cseeking truth\u201d]<\/span>
\n*
\nYes. Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil. Big names. :-) Even Anselm held Mary was born with original sin.<\/span>
\n*
\nHow about western fathers? Those are all eastern guys. :-)<\/span>
\n*
\n[Now note the manifest sophistry<\/span><\/span><\/span> here, as I will keep pointing out in the exchange itself. White\u2019s original (non-factual) claim was: \u201c<\/span><\/span>the \u2018patristic consensus\u2019 through the end of the fourth century was that Mary had committed acts of sin.\u201d Starting on this false premise, when asked to name names, he cites (correctly) four eastern fathers and no western ones. But patristic consensus includes <\/span>both<\/span> east and west. Therefore, if he can\u2019t come up with western<\/span> fathers believing as he claims, his assertion collapses<\/span>. It\u2019s as simple as that. Case closed. And White not only has to just name one or two fathers to prove his point; he has to establish \u201cconsensus\u201d<\/span>, which is far more difficult to do. But he quotes four men from the east and then a westerner who isn\u2019t even in the patristic period.This is when the tide started to decisively turn in the debate, because I knew from the patristic knowledge in my head that White was out to sea and faltering even in his factuality, let alone any arguments he wished to ground upon these alleged \u201cfacts\u201d that are actually falsehoods]<\/span><\/span>
\n*
\nAnselm isn\u2019t. :-)<\/span>
\n*
\nAnselm was not a father.<\/span>
\n*
\n[Bingo!]<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span>*
\nLet\u2019s hope not. :-) He was under orders\u2026. just kidding.<\/span>
\n*
\n[his humor was more successful than his arguments and pseudo-facts. I suggest that White stick to stand-up comic routines rather than attempted serious patristic argument]<\/span>
\n*
\nAll you\u2019re doing now is helping to support Roman primacy and orthodoxy. The east had a host of errors. They split from Rome five times, and were wrong in every case by [the criteria of] their own<\/b> later \u201corthodox\u201d beliefs. <\/span>
\n*
\nHmm, so you are switching now to a Western \u201cconsensus\u201d?<\/span>
\n*
\nNo, but your citing of only eastern fathers hardly suggests that this is overall \u201cpatristic consensus,\u201d does it?<\/span>
\n*
\n[this is ludicrous sophistry. I made the rather obvious point. White was the one claiming \u201cpatristic consensus.\u201d Anyone knows that this means all<\/span> fathers: east and west. He cites only eastern ones; I call him on it, and then he makes this dumb remark that I<\/span> am calling for (or \u201cswitching\u201d to) a \u201cwestern consensus.\u201d Unbelievable . . . but then it shows that he was on the ropes and was trying all the more to exercise sophistry to extricate himself from his foot firmly entrenched in his rather big mouth. I don\u2019t think he is even conscious<\/span> that he is doing this. Like Bill Clinton and lying, for Bishop White sophistry has so long been the trick of his trade in debating Catholics that it just comes out like breathing or blinking without having to think about it at all. He always has to oppose the Catholic, no matter how silly and absurd his objection may be. This is an absolutely classic<\/span> case of poor debating and arguing on his part]<\/span>
\n*
\nI would dispute that, actually,<\/span>
\n*
\n[fine, then make an <\/span>argument<\/span>; but he never <\/span>does<\/span>. Instead he moves onto something else. The slippery fish \/ moving target \/ 101 topics routine, perfected by folks like Jehovah\u2019s Witness evangelists and James White . . .]<\/span><\/span>
\n*
\nBut I\u2019d like to stick to the issue I\u2019ve raised here.<\/span>
\n*
\n[White talking \u2014 with a straight face, apparently, actually <\/span>serious<\/span> \u2014 about sticking to the issue, after how he has behaved, is about the equivalent of an alcoholic saying we shouldn\u2019t drink liquor . . .]<\/span><\/span>
\n*
\nIs it your belief that these two dogmas are apostolic in origin?<\/span>
\n*
\nFirst name me western fathers who thought Mary sinned, since you brought this up.<\/span>
\n*
\n[my attempt to keep White on the subject and forcing him to face and to try to alleviate the difficulties I had raised for his position . . . And remember, I had hardly any experience at all in this sort of debate,<\/span> whereas White was the big champion with dozens of oral debates in his past (as he never tires of bragging about). But he was faltering and choking and doing rather badly by this point . . . ]<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n*
\nActually, Augustine\u2019s influence regarding the universality of original sin had to be overcome for the Immaculate Conception to be contemplated and codified, sir. :-)<\/span>
\n*
\n[lacking any good answer for my actual question, White obfuscates and engages in obscurantism (tried and true methods of the sophist) by changing the topic to original sin<\/span> and Augustine\u2019s view, rather than actual sin<\/span> of Mary, which was his own<\/span> original claim as to \u201cpatristic consensus\u201d. This is very clever. But we can all see through it, especially when analyzed in this fashion. White loves \u201cpost-mortem\u201d debate analysis. Well, now we have given him a bit of his own medicine]<\/span>
\n*
\nBut that\u2019s a separate issue. Did Augustine think Mary sinned?<\/span>
\n*
\n[note how I brought it right back to my<\/span> actual question<\/span>, Ted Koppel-style, refusing to play White\u2019s game]<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n*
\nNo, not in her personal life. But he did believe she contracted original sin, correct?<\/span>
\n*
\n[the quick answer and then quickly moving on to another separate question, so as to do some quick damage control . . .]<\/span>
\n*
\nThere is the distinction between actual sin and original sin in Mary\u2019s case.<\/span>
\n*
\nDo you consider Tertullian a Western?<\/span>
\n*
\nYes.<\/span>
\n*
\nWould you include Hilary? J.N.D. Kelly lists them both in that category. I think that makes six, does it not?<\/span>
\n*
\nI\u2019m not sure, but you started by discussing acts of sin, now you are switching to original sin.<\/span>
\n*
\nActually, for both Tertullian and Hilary, it would be acts of sin.<\/span>
\n*
\nOkay, so you have two?<\/span>
\n*
\n[I wrote in my commentary soon after the debate: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n*
\n[how, then, is this a \u201cconsensus\u201d? I recently wrote a book compiling patristic beliefs, and listed sixty Church fathers who are widely cited as such, up through John Damascene). White has provided us with exactly<\/span> six<\/span> names of fathers who held that Mary sinned (and of the two westerners, one later became a Montanist heretic and the other spoke of it just once, and rather mildly), or about 10% of the fathers (or reasonable facsimile thereof). And he wants us to think this is a \u201cconsensus\u201d. How stupid does he think we <\/span>are<\/span>, anyway? Part of the method of sophistry (for those aware<\/span> they are doing it, and I don\u2019t think White is), is assuming that hearers are so dumb and ignorant that they can be fooled by the method in the first place]<\/span><\/span>
\n*
\nMay I ask how many you have that positively testify of the later Roman belief in the same time-period?<\/span>
\n*
\nOne second\u2026.consulting some papers.<\/span>
\n*
\n[White didn\u2019t give me any time to even look. He went right on to the next thing in his fertile mind]<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n*
\nBe that as it may, does it not follow from these considerations that there is no positive consensus upon this issue? The only relevant answer to that would be to ask, \u201cWho wrote on the specific question of Mary\u2019s sinlessness? Not many.\u201d<\/span>
\n*<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nWas this in Tertullian\u2019s Montanist or semi-Montanist period? About how many fathers were there, in your estimation?<\/span>
\n*
\nThe Tertullian citation is De carne<\/i> Chr.<\/i> 7. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n