Topic: Who is Giles?

[montalban]

A number of Catholic apologists cite a fella called Giles

One apologist going by the name PhilVaz refers to him as an Anglican historian.

"Anglican historian Edward Giles (London: SPCK, 1952)"
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm

Edward Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority AD 96-454 (London: SPCK, 1952) Anglican author lays out all the evidence from the first to fifth centuries of the Church
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm


Here's my problem - I've never heard of Giles and, I'd like more information about him.

I've got his book and he doesn't even give his full name.

I tracked down the publishers SPCK and e-mailed them and they can't help - referring me to Cambridge University, who haven't replied.

I e-mailed PhilVaz and he's not replied.

I started a post on the Catholic answers site and no one can help

Why are Catholics citing someone they know nothing about? (and yes, he's not just the editor, he gives opinions)

Does anyone else know anything about him?

[J Michael]

I've never heard of him, but that means nothing at all!

Other than Phil Vaz which Catholic apologists cite his work?  You did write "apologists", plural, and you did ask why Catholics (plural) would cite his work. 

Have you read Giles' book?  Does it contain historical or ecclesiological or theological errors?  If not, why should Phil Vaz not cite him?  Vaz, by the way, also cites John Meyendorff, who I'm sure you know, is Orthodox.  Also, I didn't see any actual citations, per se, just some recommended reading.  There *is* a difference, you know.

[montalban]

I've never heard of him, but that means nothing at all!

Other than Phil Vaz which Catholic apologists cite his work?  You did write "apologists", plural, and you did ask why Catholics (plural) would cite his work.  

Here is where he is actually cited, as a commentator

The Anglican historian Edward Giles comments: "Cyprian is clearer than Origen about the meaning of our Lord's words to Peter (Matt 16:18). To him the rock is Peter, and our Lord built his Church on Peter. He says this so often that no one doubts that it is his view. Cyprian also claims that this text gives the bishops their authority, for the Church is settled upon them....Disputes on this version [of De Unitate 4] have therefore turned on the question whether in Cyprian's view the primacy of Peter was a permanent factor in the Church or not. On the one hand it is suggested that 'Peter is not the real ground, not the cause nor the centre, but only the starting point in time, and the means of recognition of Church unity' [quoting Hugo Koch]....Against this view Dom Chapman stresses the words 'Upon one he builds the Church.' That one is Peter; Peter is the rock, and the idea of a temporary rock is absurd. There is no mention of priority in time in Epistles 33 and 43, and from these letters it seems clear to Chapman that Cyprian means Peter, like the bishop to be 'a permanent not a transient guarantee of the unity of the edifice which rises upon a single rock.''" (Giles, page 49, 52)
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm
I understand that this site is associated with PhilVaz so I add the following:

Not just sites. S. Ray cites him in his apologist book. He calls him a 'scholar'.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RnQiVgUn728C&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=stephen+k+ray&source=bl&ots=grVVS6E6lT&sig=6eZR1Cgp1iIm0MXAGkajajeiB40&hl=en#v=onepage&q=giles&f=false

Have you read Giles' book?

I bought it from Amazon then found it available for free at www.archive.org so gave my copy to a Catholic friend.

 Does it contain historical or ecclesiological or theological errors?  

As it 'supports' the papacy, then 'yes'

If not, why should Phil Vaz not cite him?  

Well if anyone can be cited who isn't necessarily an expert, then it undermines the value of the evidence.

Vaz, by the way, also cites John Meyendorff, who I'm sure you know, is Orthodox.  

Yes, he does misquote Meyendorff, what of it? He miss-uses "The Primacy of Peter", but then so does Ray

Also, I didn't see any actual citations, per se, just some recommended reading.  There *is* a difference, you know.

On Catholic Forums here
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9726896

I cited where he is quoted from. Funny I had many of the same non-objections there too

[montalban]

Like on the Catholic site Catholics seek that I justify why I should want this information first

[J Michael]

I've never heard of him, but that means nothing at all!

Other than Phil Vaz which Catholic apologists cite his work?  You did write "apologists", plural, and you did ask why Catholics (plural) would cite his work.  

Here is where he is actually cited, as a commentator

The Anglican historian Edward Giles comments: "Cyprian is clearer than Origen about the meaning of our Lord's words to Peter (Matt 16:18). To him the rock is Peter, and our Lord built his Church on Peter. He says this so often that no one doubts that it is his view. Cyprian also claims that this text gives the bishops their authority, for the Church is settled upon them....Disputes on this version [of De Unitate 4] have therefore turned on the question whether in Cyprian's view the primacy of Peter was a permanent factor in the Church or not. On the one hand it is suggested that 'Peter is not the real ground, not the cause nor the centre, but only the starting point in time, and the means of recognition of Church unity' [quoting Hugo Koch]....Against this view Dom Chapman stresses the words 'Upon one he builds the Church.' That one is Peter; Peter is the rock, and the idea of a temporary rock is absurd. There is no mention of priority in time in Epistles 33 and 43, and from these letters it seems clear to Chapman that Cyprian means Peter, like the bishop to be 'a permanent not a transient guarantee of the unity of the edifice which rises upon a single rock.''" (Giles, page 49, 52)
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm
I understand that this site is associated with PhilVaz so I add the following:

Not just sites. S. Ray cites him in his apologist book. He calls him a 'scholar'.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RnQiVgUn728C&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=stephen+k+ray&source=bl&ots=grVVS6E6lT&sig=6eZR1Cgp1iIm0MXAGkajajeiB40&hl=en#v=onepage&q=giles&f=false

Have you read Giles' book?

I bought it from Amazon then found it available for free at www.archive.org so gave my copy to a Catholic friend.

 Does it contain historical or ecclesiological or theological errors?  

As it 'supports' the papacy, then 'yes'

If not, why should Phil Vaz not cite him?  

Well if anyone can be cited who isn't necessarily an expert, then it undermines the value of the evidence.

Vaz, by the way, also cites John Meyendorff, who I'm sure you know, is Orthodox.  

Yes, he does misquote Meyendorff, what of it? He miss-uses "The Primacy of Peter", but then so does Ray

Also, I didn't see any actual citations, per se, just some recommended reading.  There *is* a difference, you know.

On Catholic Forums here
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9726896

I cited where he is quoted from. Funny I had many of the same non-objections there too

Sounds like you knew just a little bit more about Giles than you initially let on  .  My questions to you were based solely on what your first post contained and the extremely little I could find about Giles on the web.

So...2 or 3 Catholics "cite" him.  Why??  I haven't got a clue and am not concerned enough to investigate further.  I don't think that in the grand scheme of things it even approaches being a "big deal" and there are hundreds if not thousands of other Catholic scholars and apologists who've spilled more ink than one could imagine.  I don't read Vaz and haven't read Stephen Ray's book yet, though it is on my stack of books to read.  As a scholar (of which there are legion  ) Giles seems to be pretty obscure and there's no way for me to know how "respected" he is/was in the intellectual community.  And I don't really care, either.  Scholars are known as much for their mistakes as for their scholarship.  Who among them is perfect? 

If you're looking to somehow try to discredit Catholic scholarship or theology or ecclesiology, well....go right ahead--but you won't get any help from me.  Catholicism has withstood far fiercer, far more determined, far more potent attacks than what I've seen mounted on this board.  If, on the other hand, you are challenging a particular writer's scholarship and accuracy, hey....I'm all for it.  If someone is wrong about something and it can be clearly shown so, there's nothing wrong in that.

But when someone asks others (especially on an internet board) why a particular writer wrote what they did, any answer you get, unless backed up by further citations and quotes of explanation from said writer, really amount to nothing more than speculation.

[montalban]

 My questions to you were based solely on what your first post contained and the extremely little I could find about Giles on the web.

So...2 or 3 Catholics "cite" him.  Why??  I haven't got a clue and am not concerned enough to investigate further.  

Then I don't see your point on this thread if you're not able/willing to help.

Thanks though for your contributions to date!

[montalban]

One of the great weaknesses in Catholic apologetics is the blind following of 'authority' of someone else.

PhilVaz relies on Giles - and can't even tell me who this guy is. Others then happily also quote Giles. And the chain just gets longer and longer.

And the belief that Catholicism's greatness is because it is, because it is - as seen in a post above -that the Catholic church has survived for so long.

This would make for an interesting thread topic.

[J Michael]

One of the great weaknesses in Catholic apologetics is the blind following of 'authority' of someone else.
PhilVaz relies on Giles - and can't even tell me who this guy is. Others then happily also quote Giles. And the chain just gets longer and longer.

And the belief that Catholicism's greatness is because it is, because it is - as seen in a post above -that the Catholic church has survived for so long.

This would make for an interesting thread topic.

Please remember that apologetics writings are *not* the magisterium of the Church.  Not all apologists are equal, and their only real "authority", imho, derives from correctly and accurately representing Church dogma and doctrine, as defined by the Church.  If they cite others (and I mean real footnoted citations, not just "recommended reading") and those citations, or more importantly the conclusions drawn from them,  are factually or theologically incorrect--from a Catholic perspective, they probably need to be taken to task for that. Including someone's work in a list of sources for further or recommended reading is not a blanket endorsement for every word or every thought in that work.

As for Giles and Vaz specifically, well, personally I really couldn't care less, although others may.  I try to rely on Scripture, the Magisterium of the Church, the Church Fathers, etc. for my "apologetics".  I do, however, see why some would prefer more "modern" and possibly more easy to understand distillations of Catholic teaching, but those sometimes may contain error or misrepresentations--hence the value of the Imprimi Potest, Nihil Obstat, and Imprimatur, which it seems to me are not being used as much as they might be.  Or, it could just be that more and more works are being published which have not been submitted for them or have not qualified for them.  More's the pity.

I do not, btw, believe that the Church's greatness lies solely in the fact that it has survived for so long.  Just the converse is true, I think--it has survived for so long, **in part**, because it is great.

Apologies for babbling on...

[xariskai]

Catholicism has withstood far fiercer, far more determined, far more potent attacks than what I've seen mounted on this board.

...I do not, btw, believe that the Church's greatness lies solely in the fact that it has survived for so long.  Just the converse is true, I think--it has survived for so long, **in part**, because it is great.

Whether Latin Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute.

[J Michael]

Catholicism has withstood far fiercer, far more determined, far more potent attacks than what I've seen mounted on this board.

...I do not, btw, believe that the Church's greatness lies solely in the fact that it has survived for so long.  Just the converse is true, I think--it has survived for so long, **in part**, because it is great.

Whether Latin Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute.

First let me say that I'm not a "Latin Catholic", although I attend Mass at one of their parishes.  That being said, are you referring solely to "Latin" Catholicism as opposed to the Catholic Church in general?  And...you may be correct in your last statement--but I'm not entirely sure.  Do you mean "whether Latin Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..."?  It seems to have so far, from what I can tell.

[Papist]

Catholicism has withstood far fiercer, far more determined, far more potent attacks than what I've seen mounted on this board.

...I do not, btw, believe that the Church's greatness lies solely in the fact that it has survived for so long.  Just the converse is true, I think--it has survived for so long, **in part**, because it is great.

Whether Latin Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute.

First let me say that I'm not a "Latin Catholic", although I attend Mass at one of their parishes.  That being said, are you referring solely to "Latin" Catholicism as opposed to the Catholic Church in general?  And...you may be correct in your last statement--but I'm not entirely sure.  Do you mean "whether Latin Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..."?  It seems to have so far, from what I can tell.

Agreed. We Catholics are still here.

[xariskai]

...are you referring solely to "Latin" Catholicism as opposed to the Catholic Church in general?  

Latin in the sense of Latium, i.e. ancient Rome.

Byzantium was also "Roman" no less than the Italian peninsula, of course, but Latin was intended above as a reference to Rome.

[xariskai]

Do you mean "whether Latin Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..."?  It seems to have so far, from what I can tell.

What you are saying is:

"Catholicism has withstood far fiercer, far more determined, far more potent attacks than what I've seen mounted on this board...
"...I do not, btw, believe that the Church's greatness lies solely in the fact that it has survived for so long.  Just the converse is true, I think--it has survived for so long, **in part**, because it is great...
"Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..." -and so on.

My point is simply that whether Roman Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute.

That is to say all we are really learning from such posts is who is cheerleading for what, or who believes in what, which is fine, but it is not really especially interesting or informative, e.g. respective proponents might as easily say:

"Buddhism continues to withstand its critics..." or
"Islam continues to withstand its critics..." or
"Lutheranism continues to withstand its critics..."

Of course your posts will also withstand *this* criticism too, and it is certainly your prerogative to make repeated posts to this effect as often as you wish  ... but don't mind me too much as I occasionally post on an empty stomach.

[J Michael]

Do you mean "whether Latin Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..."?  It seems to have so far, from what I can tell.

What you are saying is:

"Catholicism has withstood far fiercer, far more determined, far more potent attacks than what I've seen mounted on this board...
"...I do not, btw, believe that the Church's greatness lies solely in the fact that it has survived for so long.  Just the converse is true, I think--it has survived for so long, **in part**, because it is great...
"Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..." -and so on.

My point is simply that whether Roman Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute.

That is to say all we are really learning from such posts is who is cheerleading for what, or who believes in what, which is fine, but it is not really especially interesting or informative, e.g. respective proponents might as easily say:

"Buddhism continues to withstand its critics..." or
"Islam continues to withstand its critics..." or
"Lutheranism continues to withstand its critics..."

Of course your posts will also withstand *this* criticism too, and it is certainly your prerogative to make repeated posts to this effect as often as you wish  ... but don't mind me too much as I occasionally post on an empty stomach.

Yup, you quoted me correctly  .  Where you went from there sort of baffles me though, but not to worry, I'm easily baffled  .  Your empty stomach postings seem to coincide with my empty brain postings  .  Your post: "Whether Latin Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute." seemed to me to be sort of non-sequiter-ish, so I felt irrationally compelled to answer somewhat in kind.  You're here; I'm here; Orthodoxy of all varieties is here; Catholicism of all varieties is here;  we have all withstood each others' and everyone elses' criticisms and will continue to do so until we don't.  And all is good   .  Hope you have a wonderful lunch!  

By the way, there is *much* on this board that is not particularly interesting, informative, or enlightening.  Most of what is written, in fact.  And that includes most, if not all, of my posts.  So, *perhaps* the lesson to be learned here is....lower your expectations  , and enjoy.


DISCLAIMER: If what I have written above doesn't make much sense, that's because it wasn't *necessarily* meant to.

By the way, the title of this thread would make a great name for a board game, wouldn't it?


Edit:  The above is what happens when one spends too much time on the "politics" forum  .

[montalban]

Please remember that apologetics writings are *not* the magisterium of the Church. 

Thank you for that - Catholics always take it upon themselves to 'teach' me something.

Not all apologists are equal, and their only real "authority", imho, derives from correctly and accurately representing Church dogma and doctrine, as defined by the Church.

Which is suggesting circular logic.

However, as you don't know who Giles is, I think you're after another thread, not this one.

[montalban]

Catholicism has withstood far fiercer, far more determined, far more potent attacks than what I've seen mounted on this board.

...I do not, btw, believe that the Church's greatness lies solely in the fact that it has survived for so long.  Just the converse is true, I think--it has survived for so long, **in part**, because it is great.

Whether Latin Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute.

First let me say that I'm not a "Latin Catholic", although I attend Mass at one of their parishes.  That being said, are you referring solely to "Latin" Catholicism as opposed to the Catholic Church in general?  And...you may be correct in your last statement--but I'm not entirely sure.  Do you mean "whether Latin Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..."?  It seems to have so far, from what I can tell.

Agreed. We Catholics are still here.

It's a self-serving argument. Like many Catholic arguments it relies on selectivity for meaning.

Atheism is still around too.

Another such argument rests on Catholicism being the largest Christian group. They abound; such arguments.

Catholic apologetics relies on quantity rather than quality of argument.

If you shout out a whole lot of quote mines, or self-serving arguments then you have a case.

Catholic apologetics is deceptively simple. For example, find any church father praising Peter, take it out of any context and have it as 'evidence' of the papacy. It doesn't matter about context, or if that church father gave the same praise for anyone else. The 'anti-Catholic' apologist then has to look that quote up, read context and find perhaps other examples of similar praise by the same writer - a more difficult (but worthwhile) task.

I am writing a book on this very topic - hence my exploration of various avenues as to who is Giles.

In my introduction I give the following example from a Catholic quote-mine

Irenaeus “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 – 189 AD)
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome – evidence from the Church Fathers at http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/cf4d.htm

It says nothing at all about Primacy. Nothing special about Peter even, as the church was founded by Peter and Paul together. What was the point in quoting it? Who knows. For Catholics its important because it is.

Catholic apologists, rather than dealing with the veracity of this quote simply reply by throwing still more quotes, as if volume counts for an argument.

[montalban]

Do you mean "whether Latin Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..."?  It seems to have so far, from what I can tell.

What you are saying is:

"Catholicism has withstood far fiercer, far more determined, far more potent attacks than what I've seen mounted on this board...
"...I do not, btw, believe that the Church's greatness lies solely in the fact that it has survived for so long.  Just the converse is true, I think--it has survived for so long, **in part**, because it is great...
"Catholicism *continues* to withstand its critics..." -and so on.

My point is simply that whether Roman Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute.

That is to say all we are really learning from such posts is who is cheerleading for what, or who believes in what, which is fine, but it is not really especially interesting or informative, e.g. respective proponents might as easily say:

"Buddhism continues to withstand its critics..." or
"Islam continues to withstand its critics..." or
"Lutheranism continues to withstand its critics..."

Of course your posts will also withstand *this* criticism too, and it is certainly your prerogative to make repeated posts to this effect as often as you wish  ... but don't mind me too much as I occasionally post on an empty stomach.

Absolutely. Your examples show the same self-serving argument can be applied to many groups

Thus it has no value at all.

It's a trite, jingoistic catch-cry in a grab-bag of Catholic responses. They come out automatically as if they are actual answers to concerns raised.

It's really scary that Catholics argue in such a manner. For a 'scholastic' church, to argue by catch-cry is really a worry.

[montalban]

My point is simply that whether Roman Catholicism withstands its critics is a value judgment, and a point of obvious dispute.

Which is simply to repeat the same self-serving argument.

One could see it as almost a reflex

[LBK]

Catholic apologetics is deceptively simple. For example, find any church father praising Peter, take it out of any context and have it as 'evidence' of the papacy. It doesn't matter about context, or if that church father gave the same praise for anyone else. The 'anti-Catholic' apologist then has to look that quote up, read context and find perhaps other examples of similar praise by the same writer - a more difficult (but worthwhile) task.

I am writing a book on this very topic - hence my exploration of various avenues as to who is Giles.

In my introduction I give the following example from a Catholic quote-mine

Irenaeus “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 – 189 AD)
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome – evidence from the Church Fathers at http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/cf4d.htm

It says nothing at all about Primacy. Nothing special about Peter even, as the church was founded by Peter and Paul together. What was the point in quoting it? Who knows. For Catholics its important because it is.

Catholic apologists, rather than dealing with the veracity of this quote simply reply by throwing still more quotes, as if volume counts for an argument.

Montalban, are you familiar with the Orthodox hymnography to the apostles Peter and Paul? or to the apostles Andrew and John? Or a number of other saints? A look at this hymnography should blow away any idea of one, single apostle prevailing over all.

Feel free to PM me. Look up my profile on this forum.

[montalban]

Montalban, are you familiar with the Orthodox hymnography to the apostles Peter and Paul? or to the apostles Andrew and John? Or a number of other saints? A look at this hymnography should blow away any idea of one, single apostle prevailing over all.

Feel free to PM me. Look up my profile on this forum.

I am not aware of this avenue of research. It would be worth taking a look at.

Many thanks.

Its interesting that these discussions go on

Catholic Karl Keating wrote Catholicism and Fundamentalism

Baptist James White gave a reply to it here http://vintage.aomin.org/Sermo131.html

A Catholic Scott Windsor gave a counter here http://www.a2z.org/acts/sermo131.htm

And it's typical of what I've seen of Catholic replies - indignation/appeal to incredulity, not answering the point, and throwing yet more quotes into the mix. It's the exact same type of argument being offered here on this thread.

For e.g. in one of his 'point-by-point' dealings with what White says, Windsor writes " Is St. Cyprian the ONLY source for the Catholic position on the Papacy?"

That is, rather than deal with the veracity of what White says, Windsor blows smoke by suggesting that there's yet even more evidence somewhere else!

[Pan Michał]

Surely not Giles de Rais?

[montalban]

Surely not Giles de Rais?

Ouch! 

[montalban]

I have seldom met with any decent argument for the Catholic church.

When I was investigating the Orthodox Church, four different Catholic friends of mine, quite independently of each other gave me quote-mine sites. I was initially halted down my path to Orthodoxy. The sheer volume of quotes was impressive.

However I chose to question these.

Some are outright misquotes. For example "Rome is THE Apostolic throne" when it reads "Rome is AN Apostolic throne". Others like I mentioned above don't prove anything at all. This drove me away from Catholicism forever.

But then Catholics have been using bogus evidence for centuries; the Donation of Constantine.

Now they rely on commentary from a mysterious 'Anglican scholar' - they don't even look to see who he is, they just accept that evidence that they think supports them.

PhilVaz and S. Ray both abuse John Meyendorff (et al) - from the book The Primacy of Rome. It's truly amazing the utter disconnect from thought out criticism there is.

[xariskai]

Differences of opinion aside, kudos to J Michael for the suggestion that the thread title would make a great board game and for seeming like a pretty good sport.  

[J Michael]

Differences of opinion aside, kudos to J Michael for the suggestion that the thread title would make a great board game and for seeming like a pretty good sport.  

Thanks!  I find life (and participation on this forum  )  is much more bearable if one has a sense of humor.

I hope Montalban figures out who Giles is.  Well, unless I do first, because *I* want the prize  .  Seems as if most Catholics (whoever *they* are), short of Vaz and Ray don't know either.  And probably couldn't give a rat's rear end for that matter, knowing that the Catholic Church will do just fine with or without him.

Anyway, I'll check back from time to time to see if he's made any progress, but otherwise, because I appear, in my ignorance, to be totally unhelpful to him, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread.  Keep smilin' Montalban  !

[montalban]

Differences of opinion aside, kudos to J Michael for the suggestion that the thread title would make a great board game and for seeming like a pretty good sport.  

Thanks!  I find life (and participation on this forum  )  is much more bearable if one has a sense of humor.

I hope Montalban figures out who Giles is.  Well, unless I do first, because *I* want the prize  .  Seems as if most Catholics (whoever *they* are), short of Vaz and Ray don't know either.  And probably couldn't give a rat's rear end for that matter, knowing that the Catholic Church will do just fine with or without him.

Anyway, I'll check back from time to time to see if he's made any progress, but otherwise, because I appear, in my ignorance, to be totally unhelpful to him, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread.  Keep smilin' Montalban  !

It must be a secret then, if you think PhilVaz and Ray do know! PhilVaz doesn't want to part with this knowledge

I like the fact you've repeated a third time your notion re the Catholic Church - this hollow triumphalism.

It doesn't need Giles! It is, I'm sure reassuring to believe such things without ever having to have things tested.

[montalban]

Differences of opinion aside, kudos to J Michael for the suggestion that the thread title would make a great board game and for seeming like a pretty good sport.  

I thought the Catholic triumphalism a joke.

[J Michael]

Differences of opinion aside, kudos to J Michael for the suggestion that the thread title would make a great board game and for seeming like a pretty good sport.  

Thanks!  I find life (and participation on this forum  )  is much more bearable if one has a sense of humor.

I hope Montalban figures out who Giles is.  Well, unless I do first, because *I* want the prize  .  Seems as if most Catholics (whoever *they* are), short of Vaz and Ray don't know either.  And probably couldn't give a rat's rear end for that matter, knowing that the Catholic Church will do just fine with or without him.

Anyway, I'll check back from time to time to see if he's made any progress, but otherwise, because I appear, in my ignorance, to be totally unhelpful to him, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread.  Keep smilin' Montalban  !

It must be a secret then, if you think PhilVaz and Ray do know! PhilVaz doesn't want to part with this knowledge

I like the fact you've repeated a third time your notion re the Catholic Church - this hollow triumphalism.

It doesn't need Giles! It is, I'm sure reassuring to believe such things without ever having to have things tested.

It seems like you're just itching for an argument or to find fault wherever you can. 

It is hardly triumphalistic to state that the Catholic Church will do just fine without a mysterious and little-known, supposedly Anglican scholar, i.e. Edward Giles.  Do you somehow believe that the Catholic Church depends on his "scholarship" for *anything* at all, much less its continued survival, just because a couple of authors, one of whom (Phil Vaz) appears to have *only* authored internet articles about the Catholic Church and nothing even remotely "scholarly", put him in their lists of recommended reading?  If so, you need a serious dose of reality.  This has about as much to do with triumphalism as saying that I will continue to do just fine if I don't eat corn flakes for breakfast.

Have I failed to somehow satisfy your standards and requirements for Catholic apologetics?  Could well be, but I never claimed to be any kind of apologist anyway--I was just questioning your painting all Catholics and Catholic apologists with the same brush of scorn and dismissal with which you paint Vaz and Ray.

If you're here just looking for a fight or to find any way you can to discredit the Catholic Church under the guise of wanting info about an unknown *Anglican* scholar,  well...good luck, Sunshine, you won't get it from me. From the number of people responding to this thread it appears that not too many others are very interested either.  Consider this my last posting to you, so feel free to say what you will by way of getting the last word in.

I wish you well in your search for Giles.  Hopefully it will be spiritually rewarding and beneficial for you.

In Christ,
JM

[montalban]

It seems like you're just itching for an argument or to find fault wherever you can.  

a) this is a discussion site
b) when people have no ideas they go to questioning motivations of others.

It is hardly triumphalistic to state that the Catholic Church will do just fine without a mysterious and little-known, supposedly Anglican scholar, i.e. Edward Giles.  

If that were your only example, then you'd have a point

Do you somehow believe that the Catholic Church depends on his "scholarship" for *anything* at all, much less its continued survival, just because a couple of authors, one of whom (Phil Vaz) appears to have *only* authored internet articles about the Catholic Church and nothing even remotely "scholarly", put him in their lists of recommended reading?  If so, you need a serious dose of reality.  This has about as much to do with triumphalism as saying that I will continue to do just fine if I don't eat corn flakes for breakfast.

If PhilVaz was the only example I gave, you'd have a point.

Have I failed to somehow satisfy your standards and requirements for Catholic apologetics?  Could well be, but I never claimed to be any kind of apologist anyway--I was just questioning your painting all Catholics and Catholic apologists with the same brush of scorn and dismissal with which you paint Vaz and Ray.

If you're here just looking for a fight or to find any way you can to discredit the Catholic Church under the guise of wanting info about an unknown *Anglican* scholar,  well...good luck, Sunshine, you won't get it from me. From the number of people responding to this thread it appears that not too many others are very interested either.  Consider this my last posting to you, so feel free to say what you will by way of getting the last word in.

which is yet again to repeat the triumphalism argument!

I mentioned earlier it seems to be a reflexive response.

It goes like this:
Me: Giles doesn't seem to be known to anyone
Catholic: What's the meaning of this attack on the church. We've withstood better than this.
Me: I find it interesting that people cite someone they know nothing about
Catholic: What's the meaning of this attack on the church. We've withstood better than this.

and so on

I have noted other examples of Catholic non-argument here, citing a few Catholic web-sites.

No engagement of that has occurred. Simply a repeat that the Catholic church has triumphed for so long, and what's the meaning of these attacks against it 

[xariskai]

I am writing a book on this very topic - hence my exploration of various avenues as to who is Giles.

Have you considered writing under a pseudonym?

It just occurred to me it would be interesting if you chose the name Giles.

[J Michael]

I am writing a book on this very topic - hence my exploration of various avenues as to who is Giles.

Have you considered writing under a pseudonym?

It just occurred to me it would be interesting if you chose the name Giles.

LOL!!

Then he would, ipso facto, know who Giles is and wouldn't need to be asking on the internet  .  That's assuming, of course, that he knows himself  .

[montalban]

I am writing a book on this very topic - hence my exploration of various avenues as to who is Giles.

Have you considered writing under a pseudonym?

It just occurred to me it would be interesting if you chose the name Giles.

Then no one would know who I was - but certainly it would mean Catholics would rely on me as an authority

[Asteriktos]

Closest I know of...

[J Michael]

I am writing a book on this very topic - hence my exploration of various avenues as to who is Giles.

Have you considered writing under a pseudonym?

It just occurred to me it would be interesting if you chose the name Giles.

Then no one would know who I was - but certainly it would mean, specifically,  2 Catholics, Phil Vaz and S. Ray, would rely on me as an authority a source for recommended reading.

Fixed it for you.

That wouldn't place you in a position of much "authority", would it?

(Seems you have a really strange notion of what constitutes "authority" when it comes to Catholic teaching. )

[montalban]

Fixed it for you.

That wouldn't place you in a position of much "authority", would it?

(Seems you have a really strange notion of what constitutes "authority" when it comes to Catholic teaching. )

There's another Catholic tradition, re-wording what someone says!

[J Michael]

Fixed it for you.

That wouldn't place you in a position of much "authority", would it?

(Seems you have a really strange notion of what constitutes "authority" when it comes to Catholic teaching. )

There's another Catholic tradition, re-wording what someone says!

Only for accuracy when they are wrong.  Besides, I don't pretend to represent the Catholic Church as a whole (which is good for everybody, really  ).

(You really seem to have it in for the Catholic Church, don't you?)

[Papist]

What is the point of this thread?

[J Michael]

What is the point of this thread?

I could be wrong but my *opinion* is that the point of this thread is to find ways to bash the Catholic Church while pretending to be scholarly and look for the ever-elusive and totally irrelevant Giles. 

[montalban]

What is the point of this thread?

See the OP

The point is:

a) several Catholics quote Giles as an AUTHORITY*

b) no one can tell me who this person is



*-I even cited where they use his OPINION - however some may choose to re-work this to say that they are only relying on him as a source... despite the fact I evidenced what I said.

[montalban]

What is the point of this thread?

I could be wrong but my *opinion* is that the point of this thread is to find ways to bash the Catholic Church while pretending to be scholarly and look for the ever-elusive and totally irrelevant Giles.  

And more re-working!

You've already stated you can't help with this thread because you don't know who Giles is

I don't know what your point is.

I asked a question about who this person is. You wanted to know why I wanted to know. You also have repeated quite often your just-so statement about the triumph of the Catholic Church.

How 'unassailable' is it when your posts avoid the actual topic, but speculate on motive and re-work what's said?


Simply put, if you can't help with the OP I'm not sure why you keep posting

[J Michael]

What is the point of this thread?

I could be wrong but my *opinion* is that the point of this thread is to find ways to bash the Catholic Church while pretending to be scholarly and look for the ever-elusive and totally irrelevant Giles.  

And more re-working!

You've already stated you can't help with this thread because you don't know who Giles is

I don't know what your point is.

I asked a question about who this person is. You wanted to know why I wanted to know. You also have repeated quite often your just-so statement about the triumph of the Catholic Church.

How 'unassailable' is it when your posts avoid the actual topic, but speculate on motive and re-work what's said?


Simply put, if you can't help with the OP I'm not sure why you keep posting

Papist asked a legitimate question.  I'm quite sure he read through all the preceding posts, including your original post.

Simply put, I gave my opinion as to what the purpose of the thread was.  If you don't like it, too bad.  Our gracious hosts here have, so far, given me the freedom to do that.

You seem to have been searching for this elusive Giles for several years now, apparently without much success and obviously with even less success on this board.  That in itself should tell you *something* about him--like, *maybe* he's not as important as you seem to make him out to be.  I mean, it's not as if all kinds of Catholic writers are using whatever he wrote or edited as a primary source for their works or anything like that.  Phi Vaz is *hardly* a Catholic superstar of any kind.  Stephen Ray has better credentials, but even he and his writings are not part of the Catholic magisterium, which, as you probably know is *the* authority for Catholics, regardless of who is writing what by way of "apologetics".

Why do I keep posting?  Because I can, and because I think (that is an opinion) you have an agenda that you're not being entirely up front about.  And I'm also very willing to be wrong about that. 

[J Michael]

Papist asked a legitimate question.  I'm quite sure he read through all the preceding posts, including your original post.

Simply put, I gave my opinion as to what the purpose of the thread was.  If you don't like it, too bad.  Our gracious hosts here have, so far, given me the freedom to do that.

You seem to have been searching for this elusive Giles for several years now, apparently without much success and obviously with even less success on this board.  That in itself should tell you *something* about him--like, *maybe* he's not as important as you seem to make him out to be.  I mean, it's not as if all kinds of Catholic writers are using whatever he wrote or edited as a primary source for their works or anything like that.  Phi Vaz is *hardly* a Catholic superstar of any kind.  Stephen Ray has better credentials, but even he and his writings are not part of the Catholic magisterium, which, as you probably know is *the* authority for Catholics, regardless of who is writing what by way of "apologetics".

Why do I keep posting?  Because I can, and because I think (that is an opinion) you have an agenda that you're not being entirely up front about.  And I'm also very willing to be wrong about that.  

EDIT to above post:  Where I wrote "years" I meant "months".  Apologies for the error.

[montalban]

Simply put, I gave my opinion as to what the purpose of the thread was.  If you don't like it, too bad.  Our gracious hosts here have, so far, given me the freedom to do that.

Simply put you offer speculation that has nothing to do with the topic.

Then you add more speculation.

Then you re-work an argument on 'authority'.

It's why I find Catholic apologetics so sad.

If you want to talk about the veracity of any point, you have had opportunity to do so. Instead just more of the same, and how great the RC church is  

If you want to discuss anything other than me, I'd be more than happy to oblige

[J Michael]

Simply put, I gave my opinion as to what the purpose of the thread was.  If you don't like it, too bad.  Our gracious hosts here have, so far, given me the freedom to do that.

Simply put you offer speculation that has nothing to do with the topic.

Then you add more speculation.

Then you re-work an argument on 'authority'.

It's why I find Catholic apologetics so sad.

If you want to talk about the veracity of any point, you have had opportunity to do so. Instead just more of the same, and how great the RC church is  

If you want to discuss anything other than me, I'd be more than happy to oblige

I offered a response to a question by way of an opinion, and clearly stated it as such.

I added no speculation.

I pointed out precisely where the authority of the Church lies.  I also pointed out that 1 work by one seemingly *very* unknown author, referenced by 2 or 3 not-very-authoritative Catholic apologists hardly makes that 1 work by that one unknown author authoritative, in *any* sense of the word.  You didn't like that.  Too bad.

I really have no further desire whatsoever to discuss anything at all with you, which makes me happy and should really make you overjoyed.

Enjoy your hunt for the elusive Giles.  Personally, and I know you couldn't give a rat's rear-end about what I think, I believe you're on a fools errand and wasting your time.  But feel free.  It's yours to waste.  Just my opinion.

Good bye. 

[montalban]

I offered a response to a question by way of an opinion, and clearly stated it as such.

I added no speculation.

You have speculated here as to motive!

Certainly you did question why I was here, but you've also added your own guess as to why I'm here, which IS speculation.

They are different things.

Hope this clears up the confusion