Ad hominems and other personal jabs will be marked in green.

If you do not wish to read the entire log, or wish to read my response first, then Click Here.

*** Log file opened: 07/28/2001 6:49:18 PM
[18:49] BigScott [] has joined #prosapologian
[18:51] Blondy [] has joined #prosapologian
[18:51] <Apollos> I see
[18:51] <Apollos> well
[18:51] <tatrbrain> every one needs it
[18:51] <Apollos> let me test your acumen
[18:51] <tatrbrain> and every one is embarrassed to buy it
[18:51] <tatrbrain> so if I buy it on discount
[18:51] wonky [] has joined #prosapologian
[18:51] <tatrbrain> and sell it at a marked up price
[18:51] Blondy is now known as Cue-home
[18:51] MercRT [] has joined #prosapologian
[18:52] <tatrbrain> I can then introduce the gospel as a toilet paper sales man
[18:52] <tatrbrain> and make money doing so
[18:52] <Apollos> Well
[18:52] <Cue-home> Oh no, it's BigScott, the man who proves me wrong on a daily basis!

I should have said, "No, not daily, only when you provide me with the material..." which he ended up doing today!

[18:52] <Apollos> you better be well prepared to answer questions about your product
[18:52] <tatrbrain> you have been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny
[18:52] <tatrbrain> oh
[18:52] <BigScott> daily basis?
[18:53] <Cue-home> 365 times a year, it seems. :-)
[18:53] <Apollos> kind of like a dialysis machine
[18:53] <BigScott> I wouldn't say that
[18:53] <tatrbrain> I think you need to study John 6 again scott
[18:53] <BigScott> tatr, I think you should study John 6 again.
[18:53] <tatrbrain> i have..
[18:53] <GS^Patton> Hello
[18:54] <tatrbrain> Dr White has a chapter in his book
[18:54] <BigScott> I have
[18:54] <tatrbrain> the potters freedom
[18:54] <tatrbrain> do you have a copy?
[18:54] <Apollos> BigScott: Do you have any papel authority for your assertion ?
[18:54] <BigScott> I have that chapter...
[18:54] <Apollos> papal
[18:57] <tatrbrain> oh my its 9:00 pm
[18:57] <tatrbrain> i gotta study
[18:57] tatrbrain is now known as tatrstudy
[18:58] <GS^Patton> Hey BigScott: question... is it written anywhere that a council isnt infallible until it is ratified by the pope besides the forgeries?
[18:58] <Cue-home> Say Scott, you finished with Stravinskas yet?
[18:59] <Cue-home> wonky: only people who like me and don't call me "baldy" get to look at articles in progress.
[18:59] <BigScott> GS.... not sure on that one
[18:59] <BigScott> James, yes, I finished...
[19:00] <Cue-home> Scott: And?
[19:00] <Cue-home> Did you have any idea what in the world he was talking about in his closing statement?
[19:02] <Cue-home> 14,15(0,15)14,15(0,15)14,15(0,15) 4,15 James is on the Phone 14,15(0,15)14,15(0,15)14,15(0,15)
[19:02] <BigScott> James... oh, I'll wait...
[19:02] <Cue-home> Wait?
[19:02] reader102 [] has joined #prosapologian
[19:03] <BigScott> you're on the phone?
[19:03] <Cue-home> Sorry.
[19:03] <Cue-home> Back
[19:03] reader102 [] has left #prosapologian
[19:04] <Cue-home> Scott: Please feel free.
[19:05] <BigScott> OK, well... I thought Fr. S did OK, till the end, where you got him flustered on the "roma locuta" thing (that "technically" you stated the facts, but you again misrepresented "roma locuta") anyway, from that point on.... Fr. S. was clearly on the defensive, and did not do well at all.
[19:05] Today [] has left #prosapologian
[19:05] <Cue-home> Did Augustine ever say "Roma locuta" Scott?
[19:05] <BigScott> He did not use those words.
[19:05] <Cue-home> Is that what I said to him, Scott?
[19:06] Cynic [] has joined #prosapologian
[19:06] <Cue-home> Should double Ph.D. RC apologists KNOW the context of the statements they quote, Scott?
[19:06] <BigScott> Did St. Augustine ever say "causa finita est" James?
[19:06] MercDOZE [] has quit IRC (Ping timeout for MercDOZE
[19:06] <Cue-home> He surely did, but it was NOT because "Rome had spoken" Scott.
[19:06] <BigScott> like I said, "technically" you were correct...
[19:06] <Cue-home> Technically, historically, contextually correct.
[19:06] <BigScott> It was because "the Apostolic See" had "sent rescripts"
[19:07] <Cue-home> Your accusation of misrepresentation is absurd.
[19:07] <BigScott> that's "speaking"
[19:07] <Cue-home> And what else, Scott?
[19:07] <Cue-home> Why had they sent REPLIES?
[19:07] <Cue-home> To what had they REPLIED?
[19:07] Cue-home played jea.wav. (F4) - Request Pirch Style. (F3) Request mIRC Style.
[19:07] MercRT [] has joined #prosapologian
[19:07] <Cue-home> Well?
[19:08] <BigScott> They had replied to the two councils the African bishops had sent...
[19:08] <Cue-home> Indeed! So, why did the North African Councils have to take the LEAD in purging this HERESY from the Church, Scott?

That's NOT what the African Bishops were doing! They were objecting to Zosimus declaring Pelagius and Celestius to be orthodox and Catholic. Zosimus was NOT condoning Pelagianism, he had been deceived by a false confession that the two were indeed orthodox and Catholic.

[19:08] <BigScott> but when Rome had "spoken" (sent rescripts) at that point, St. Augustine said, "causa finita est"
[19:08] <Cue-home> IF, especially, the way this is mis-cited is true?
[19:09] <Cue-home> Anyone who has read the passage in its own context knows better, Scott. They know that Augustine had preached an entire sermon against Pelagianism without once mentioning Popes or Rome.
[19:09] <BigScott> I used your citation and translation in my initial response to you.
[19:09] <Cue-home> That he had, in fact, then spoken of the role of the North African Churches in standing against Pelagianism.
[19:09] <Cue-home> And then he pointed out the unity of the entire Western Church against Pelagianism by referencing Julius' agreement with the actions of the NA councils.
[19:09] <Cue-home> To turn that into an argument for Papal primacy, especially in light of what happened with Zosimus, is simply dishonest and incredible.
[19:10] <BigScott> then also in that response I quoted the ENTIRE Sermon 131... which has several other very "Catholic" presentations that I'm sure you'd like to overlook.
[19:10] <Cue-home> Fact is, your charge of "misrepresentation" was just shot down again, Scott. Then again, if every shallow and fallacious charge of victory on your part was removed from your website, there wouldn't be a whole lot left, would there?

I don't recall claiming "victory" anywhere on my website. I propose that James is wrong several times, and clearly document where he's wrong - most of which he chooses to ignore, but I don't claim "victory."

[19:10] <C777> Augustine was not a Roman Catholic.
[19:11] <GS^Patton> Augustine: Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 3
[19:11] <BigScott> No, the charge stands... for Rome did "speak" but Augustine didn't use the words "Roma locuta"
[19:11] <skyman`> The fact is that the African Churches notified Rome because Pelagius had spread his heresy there prior to its reaching Africa.
[19:11] <Cue-home> So, your position is that Augustine said that the North African councils spoke, and Rome agreed....but only Rome spoke?
[19:11] <Cue-home> Deep, Scott, deep.
[19:12] <GS^Patton> Rome spoke on the orthodoxy of the Pelagians...was it settled to Augustine then????
[19:12] <BigScott> No... James
[19:12] <Cue-home> I hope you don't run your business with the same kind of logic you use in theology and history, Scott.
[19:12] <BigScott> the Africans sent two councils... THEN Rome sent rescripts (Rome spoke), and then St. Augustine said, "causa finita est."
[19:12] <Cue-home> it's another issue of, "Yeah, well, the Roman debater didn't do well" for you? Who would it have to be up there for you to ever admit Rome was wrong about something? Wait, forget that, you can't admit that.
[19:12] Servant [] has joined #prosapologian
[19:13] <GS^Patton> [BigScott]: was it settled when Rome did not agree with the Pelagians?
[19:13] <GS^Patton> err..did agree
[19:13] <skyman`> It required the resolve of the African churches to correct the pope.
[19:13] <BigScott> GS, there was no more discussion from St. Augustine or the African bishops after "Rome spoke."
[19:14] <Cue-home> LOL
[19:14] <BigScott> on that matter that is
[19:14] <Cue-home> Unbelievable.
[19:14] <BigScott> THAT is the context
[19:14] <Cue-home> Until Zosimus "UNSPOKE" Scott?
[19:14] <Cue-home> :-)
[19:14] <GS^Patton> Rome spoke and said Pelagius was orthodox...why didnt Augustine say then Roma Loca est causta finita est?
[19:14] <BigScott> different subject James
[19:14] <Cue-home> LOL
[19:14] <Cue-home> Nope, exact same subject, to any rationally thinking individual.
[19:14] <C777> Oh please
[19:15] <skyman`> If it was so finished, why did the next pope temporarily sanction the heresy that had already been infallibly decided?
[19:15] <BigScott> The point was, St. Augustine submitted to Rome's authority once Rome directly responded to the councils they sent.
[19:15] <skyman`> what?
[19:15] MrDav [] has quit IRC ((This space for rent))
[19:15] <C777> So Rome sent rescripts. Are there historical records of them?
[19:15] <GS^Patton> [Cue-home]: I know of what your discussing, I to the fact that Innocent spoke and called em hereticks, than Zozximus changed corrected Innocent, than changed his own mind?
[19:15] mercyme [Guess@] has joined #prosapologian
[19:15] <Cue-home> It's hopeless, folks. His mind is so enslaved he couldn't see the truth if it was standing right in front of him.
[19:15] <GS^Patton> you mean since Rome understood they ment businesS?
[19:16] <BigScott> Yes, later Zosimus "corrected" his earlier statement, but that's not the point of a Catholic pointing out how St. Augustine submitted to Rome's authority in Sermon 131.
[19:16] <Cue-home> I've known many Romanists in my few years, but none so utterly blind to the most basic facts as BigScott.
[19:16] <GS^Patton> wait...
[19:16] <BigScott> James.... look at what I am saying....
[19:16] <GS^Patton> Rome submitted to Augustine int he since that Rome disagred with Augustine..then revered their decision
[19:17] <BigScott> No, Rome sent the rescripts, then Augustine went silent... "causa finita est" as far as he was concerned... it would be the Emperor that confronted Zosimus again later and after THAT Zosimus reversed what he said.
[19:18] <skyman`> No, there is not a thing to indicate Augustine ever submitted to Rome's decision, that is read into history, not out of it. It required the resolve of the African Churches to decide the issue...and when Zosimus temporarily sanctioned the Pelagian heresy & told the African Churches to submit to that decision, the African Churches told Zosimus to take a hike.
[19:18] <GS^Patton> If Aug accepted Rome's authority..whyt didnt he and the N Africans end their case when Rome accepted Pelagius?
[19:18] <Cue-home> Augustine went SILENT? LOLOLOL
[19:18] <BigScott> James, on THAT incident, he did
[19:18] <Cue-home> Scott, please, man, we all know you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about, but this is getting embarrassing!!! Stop, man, think!
[19:18] <skyman`> Unbelievable
[19:18] <skyman`> Man, you guys have to twist & turn & work hard to get around the facts.
[19:19] <Cue-home> If you mean he ended his Sermon and went home for lunch, yes. If you mean he went silent on are utterly daft.

Didn't see this one originally... again, Zosimus was NOT supportive of Pelagianism! He believed the false confession and said the two were (now) orthodox and Catholic. Zosimus was NOT a Pelagian, and THAT is what James is inferring here!

[19:19] <GS^Patton> Didnt he publish his greatest response to the Pelagians AFTER that happen?
[19:19] <BigScott> James, what OTHER document did St. Augustine write between Sermon 131 and Zosimus' reversal?
[19:19] <Cue-home> Uh....hows about his role in the councils that told Zosimus to go stick his head in a bucket of water?
[19:19] <Cue-home> Is that "silence"?
[19:19] Cue-home hums "The Sounds of Silence"
[19:19] <BigScott> that was PRIOR to the rescripts being sent James...
[19:19] <skyman`> The African Churches sent a letter to Zosimus & told him to take a hike - That's what.
[19:19] <GS^Patton> the reveral took place before 131 was finished
[19:19] <GS^Patton> that is....
[19:19] <Cue-home> Os is that sound?
[19:20] <BigScott> (GS^Patton) you're getting a bit anachronistic now
[19:20] <Cue-home> No, Scott, it was not.
[19:20] <GS^Patton> reveral saying Pelagius was a heretick
[19:20] <Cue-home> Sheesh, you have NO idea what you are babbling about.
[19:20] <GS^Patton> why didnt Augustine shut up sooner?
[19:20] <GS^Patton> when Zosimus said Pelagius is ok
[19:20] <BigScott> James, I cite the entire context of Sermon 131...
[19:20] Cue-home discovers he is again wasting his time with one who has no ears to hear.
[19:20] AKAJerry [] has joined #prosapologian
[19:20] <GS^Patton> and WEPT at the orthodoxy of his letter?
[19:21] <BigScott> James, can you cite ANOTHER statement AFTER Sermon 131 and BEFORE Zosimus' reversal?
[19:21] <BigScott> (where Augustine speaks out on that same subject)
[19:21] <Cue-home> Asked and answered, Scott. Not going to waste any more time with you. You haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
[19:21] <BigScott> do that and you've "won" and I will retract
[19:21] <C777> Man, both Scott Hahn and St. Joseph's have a lot of audio books on Amazon.
[19:22] <BigScott> No James, you have not cited the source... if so, do so again... I must have missed it.
[19:22] <GS^Patton> . . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.
[19:22] <GS^Patton> Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.
[19:22] <Cue-home> What do you mean by "Zosimus' reversal"?
[19:22] <Cue-home> Reversal of his embrace of Pelagius, or his reversal of the previous policy of Rome?
[19:22] <BigScott> After the Emperor confronted him...
[19:23] <Cue-home> That's what I assumed....and you have again ignored the councils that Augustine presided over.
[19:23] <BigScott> he never embraced Palagianism... let's be clear on that...
[19:23] <C777> Cue-home - Your work is never done.
[19:23] C777 sniffles.
[19:23] <GS^Patton> [BigScott]: remember this...
[19:23] <BigScott> He stated (after being deceived) that Pelagius was orthodox and Catholic
[19:23] <GS^Patton> Zosimus said he looked at the letters and confessions CLOSELY he WEPT...
[19:24] >Servant< Pelagius was orthodox?
[19:24] <BigScott> Servant, no he wasn't
[19:24] <skyman`> I pointed out that Augustine and all the African Bishops sent Zosimus a letter and told him to take a hike when he tried to convince the African Church to accept Pelagius' disciple Celestius as orthodox - How difficult is that ?
[19:24] <BigScott> but the Pope was deceived to think he was.
[19:24] Aletheia sets mode: -b *!*
[19:24] <GS^Patton> N Africa rejected him BASED ON SCRIPTURE (Oh? Sola Scriprura???),,,
[19:25] <GS^Patton> then...
[19:25] <BigScott> skyman, I agree with what you say there
[19:25] <GS^Patton> rendering the fact that he is the pope...and had maturely examined their confession..he did an about face...
[19:25] <GS^Patton> how do you really answer that???
[19:25] <GS^Patton> See...
[19:25] <skyman`> The name of the letter that the Africans sent to Zosimus (telling him to take a hike in essence) was "Postquam a nobis"
[19:25] <GS^Patton> Augustine didnt listen to the pope...
[19:26] <GS^Patton> Augustine did his own thing...
[19:26] <BigScott> GS, yes he did once Rome responded to his two councils
[19:26] <BigScott> what is the significance of "causa finita est?"
[19:26] <GS^Patton> if Augustine really ffelt Rome was the authority..why didnt he listen sooner???
[19:26] <skyman`> If the pope was deceived, he was not infallible...but the infallibility defined means "not deceiving or being deceived"

No sky, I thought you had a clue on how a CATHOLIC defines infallibility. Click Here.

[19:26] <Cue-home> I'm telling ya,'s a lost cause. No matter how clearly you explain it, no matter how compelling and logical your presentation, Scott will not see it. He's blind. Utterly.
[19:27] <GS^Patton> [BigScott]: that has been discussed..we are now working on what he ment by that
[19:27] >Servant< cue must be looking something up?
[19:27] <skyman`> the word infallibility itself defined means "not deceiving or being deceived"
[19:27] <BigScott> Rome had sent word that Pel. and Cel. were orthodox, Aug. and the African bishops challenged that... and sent two councils...
[19:27] <BigScott> Rome sent rescripts...
[19:27] <tatrstudy> Cue: how long have u been witnessing to BigScott?
[19:27] <GS^Patton> Scott..
[19:27] <Cue-home> Scott....YOU ARE CLUELESS.
[19:27] <GS^Patton> Why didnt Augustine submit to the earlier ruling of orthodoxy???
[19:27] <skyman`> I agree it's waste of time - He's committed to his error.
[19:28] <Cue-home> Totally.
[19:28] <BigScott> Augustine STILL didn't agree (hence the closing comment in 131.10) BUT he still submitted saying "causa finita est" THAT is not "clueless" that's the way it went down.
[19:28] <GS^Patton> Why didnt he listen sooner...
[19:28] >Servant< So was he wrong?
[19:28] <Cue-home> Folks, Scott is so confused, he thinks Augustine was referring to ZOSIMUS in 131....
[19:29] <BigScott> James, why to you resort to ridicule?
[19:29] <Cue-home> Same reason Elijah did with the prophets of Baal.
[19:29] <tatrstudy> Scott YOu won't listen
[19:29] <Cynic> By what standard could it be known that a pope was in error?
[19:29] <GS^Patton> and...I am not sure that Augustine still didn't "agree"
[19:29] <Cue-home> You have been shown your error so many times it is unreal. But you are decieved.
[19:29] <GS^Patton> you'd have to show me trhat
[19:29] mercyme [Guess@] has left #prosapologian
[19:30] <BigScott> I have listened... and learned a great deal about this event due to James challenging me on this initially.
[19:30] skyman` [~skyman@] has quit IRC (Read error to skyman`[]: Connection reset by peer)
[19:30] <GS^Patton> and the question still stands..why not submit sooner???
[19:30] <GS^Patton> Ok..
[19:30] Gordo [] has joined #prosapologian
[19:30] skyman` [~skyman@] has joined #prosapologian
[19:30] <GS^Patton> where did Augustine say he didn't "agree" (not my choice of wording)
[19:30] <BigScott> GS... he was not directly responded to until Rome responded to the rescripts sent...
[19:30] <skyman`> Augustine's words "causa finita est" are not an admission that Rome's decision had finished the cause...The case was closed before it ever got to the pope for the African Churches....They had notified Rome so that Rome could repudiate the heresy there.
[19:31] <BigScott> a bit anachronistic there skyman
[19:31] <skyman`> How difficult can this be?
[19:31] <skyman`> No, you are the one guilty of being anachronistic
[19:31] <GS^Patton> [BigScott]: you are assuming that Augustine wasn't satisfied with the rulings of the n. africans
[19:31] <GS^Patton> also..
[19:31] <GS^Patton> If Rome was an authority..
[19:31] <skyman`> You're the one reading papal primacy back into history
[19:31] <GS^Patton> why did they not submit sooner?
[19:32] <BigScott> the AFRICAN'S "cause" was finished... but then the EMPEROR stepped in....
[19:32] <GS^Patton> (i.e. N Africams)
[19:32] <BigScott> GS, I already answered that
[19:32] <skyman`> The African churches had already decided.
[19:32] <GS^Patton> where???
[19:32] <AKAJerry> They sent rescripts to Rome for "notification" skyman. Hardly the reason for an appeal to the ranking see in the west.
[19:32] <BigScott> GS... he was not directly responded to until Rome responded to the rescripts sent...
[19:32] Gordo [] has left #prosapologian
[19:32] <GS^Patton> you are saying Augustine did NOT know Rome felt he was orthodox???
[19:33] Cue-home [] has quit IRC (Ping timeout for Cue-home[])
[19:33] <skyman`> AKA, yes, they did...Because that's where the Pelagian heresy was before it reached Africa....Your ignorance on this is amazing. Rome was clueless about the heresy.
[19:33] <GS^Patton> the N Africans warned Zosimus the Pelagius was full of himself and that he was being deceived
[19:33] <skyman`> If you'll just read a little of history you'd learn something
[19:33] <BigScott> sky... like I said, even after Rome had sent the rescripts... Augustine was still not in agreement... hence he stated "would that their error be ended as well." but from THAT point on, the African Bishops said nothing more, the EMPEROR did.
[19:34] <GS^Patton> he than said, well, I have carefully looked at it, no need to worry guys
[19:34] Shanker [Shanker@] has joined #prosapologian
[19:34] <GS^Patton> so the question still remains...
[19:34] >Servant< skyman - the master teacher.
[19:34] <AKAJerry> I know the Genesis of Pelegianism was in Italy skyman. You idea of sending rescripts to Rome for some so called "notification" is weak.
[19:34] <skyman`> The African churches did reply Scott
[19:34] Cue-home [] has joined #prosapologian
[19:34] Shanker [Shanker@] has quit IRC ()
[19:34] <Cue-home> You are saying that when Augustine said "causa finita est," he was SUBMITTING himself to Zosimus' rehabilitation of Pelagius and Coelestius, right?
[19:34] <BigScott> sky... with what document?
[19:34] <skyman`> They told Zosimus to take a hike when he sanctioned what Innocent had condemned as heresy.
[19:34] <GS^Patton> why didnt Augustine submit to the pope in the first place when the N A's said watch out for Pelagius
[19:34] <skyman`> I told you above
[19:35] <BigScott> Cue, no I did not say that
[19:35] <Cue-home> Scott, I don't know why I bother, but I shall demonstrate your error for all to see (not that you'll admit it).
[19:35] <Cue-home> You are saying that when Augustine said "causa finita est," he was SUBMITTING himself to Zosimus' rehabilitation of Pelagius and Coelestius, right?
[19:35] mon-bbl [] has quit IRC (Read error to mon-bbl[]: Connection reset by peer)
[19:35] <skyman`> for heaven's sake
[19:35] <Cue-home> <BigScott> Augustine STILL didn't agree (hence the closing comment in 131.10) BUT he still submitted saying "causa finita est" THAT is not "clueless" that's the way it went down. <------ that's what this means, correct?
[19:35] <Cue-home> What does that mean, then?
[19:35] <BigScott> you were gone when I clarified that...
[19:35] <BigScott> (now to James) sky... like I said, even after Rome had sent the rescripts... Augustine was still not in agreement... hence he stated "would that their error be ended as well." but from THAT point on, the African Bishops said nothing more, the EMPEROR did.
[19:35] <skyman`> I told you what document
[19:35] <Cue-home> OK, so the rescripts came from what Pope, Scott?
[19:36] <Cue-home> What Pope was on the throne when Augustine preached Sermon 131, Scott?
[19:36] <skyman`> The document was "Postquam a nobis"
[19:36] <skyman`> You guys are speaking out of ignorance.
[19:36] <Cue-home> Oh Scott????
[19:36] <BigScott> St. Augustine is refering to the incident with Zosimus and the Pelagians in Sermon 131.10
[19:36] <Cue-home> AH, there we go.
[19:36] <Cue-home> OK, big guy....what's the date on Sermon 131?
[19:36] <skyman`> No he was not
[19:37] <BigScott> James, I am a bit outnumbered here... give me a chance...
[19:37] <skyman`> This is amazing
[19:37] <GS^Patton> Sept 416?
[19:37] >Servant< I am glad i dont have to go against skyman and cue :)
[19:37] <BigScott> I'd have to go look it up James... don't have that committed to memory
[19:37] <Cue-home> Fine....for your information, oh great researcher of the ancients, Sermon 131 is from 416; ZOSIMUS BECAME POPE IN 417.
[19:37] <GS^Patton> [Servant]: what about me?> LOL
[19:37] <Cue-home> Your entire argument just exploded.
[19:37] >Servant< Sorry
[19:38] <skyman`> BigScott, Innocent was pope when sermo 131 was preached
[19:38] >Servant< I missed you Patton
[19:38] <BigScott> Cue... so Augustine was against what Innocent said?
[19:38] <GS^Patton> ow, I just learned something...
[19:38] <skyman`> I told you guys you didn't know what you were talking about, sheesh
[19:38] <BigScott> Innocent CONDEMNED Pel and Cel
[19:39] <skyman`> This is utterly unbelievable
[19:39] <Cue-home> The "rescripts" refer to Innocent's responses to two previous councils.
[19:39] <Cue-home> Your entire interpretation of causa finita est is shredded and left groundless; your entire article on the subject on the website is shown to be based upon abject ignorance; and your accusation of misrepresentation lodged earlier this evening thoroughly refuted. My many thanks.
[19:39] <GS^Patton> I just learned that Augustine agreed with Innocent 3rd (I knew that)..but that 131 was written IN SUPPORT of Innocent?
[19:39] <Cue-home> Augustine's comment was simple: the Scriptures condemn Pelagianism; two North African councils have met and affirmed that the Scriptures condemn Pelagius; and even Rome agrees with OUR conclusion, the matter is finished.

There is absolutely NO MENTION of Scripture in the context of Sermon 131.10! Augustine doesn't even bring up Scripture here! So, James is inserting his presupposition into St. Augustine's words! THEN he mixes the condemnation of PelagianISM with PelagIUS himself - not quite the same issue here. We also don't see the word "OUR" in there either, another insertion of White's presuppositions upon St. Augustine.

[19:39] C777 learns more and more in this channel every day.
[19:39] <BigScott> sorry. my article was based on your citation... so I will go back and look at it again... I am not above error... if I have made one, I will retract... will you?
[19:40] <C777> Thank you, Cue. =)
[19:40] <Cue-home> And the matter of your ability to make heads or tails out of almost any historical stuff is finished as well, ol' buddy.
[19:40] <Cue-home> Good grief, man, MY ARTICLE GIVES THE DATES!!!!!!!!
[19:40] <GS^Patton> Doc, so actually...Zosimus was a bad boy AFTER 131 was written which opened a new can of worms???
[19:40] <BigScott> I am not above error... IF I have made a mistake, I will retract...
[19:40] <Cue-home> I quote:
[19:40] <Cue-home> These comments are in reference to the heresy of Pelagianism, which Augustine had been battling in the church in North Africa. This sermon, delivered September 23, 416, begins, ironically, with an exposition of John 6:53

Make note of the date that James cites tonight, then scroll down.

[19:41] <Cue-home> Did I give the date there, Scott?
[19:41] JohnO [] has joined #prosapologian
[19:41] <Cue-home> The letters reached Innocent in time for him to take advice of his clergy, and send favorable replies on Jan. 27, 417.
[19:41] <skyman`> BigScott, what makes your statements utterly incredible is your constant lack of a grasp on the facts of history.
[19:41] <Cue-home> Did I give the date there, Scott?
[19:41] <Cue-home> In about six weeks more he was dead: but Zosimus, his successor, was scarcely installed in his place before Coelestius appeared at Rome in person to plead his cause;
[19:41] <Cue-home> See how that follows, Scott?
[19:41] <BigScott> sky, back off from your criticism for a moment and let James present what he has
[19:42] CStar sets mode: +o Cue-home
[19:42] <BigScott> Yes, James, you provide a date HERE... you did not initially
[19:42]*** Log file closed: 07/28/2001 7:42:37 PM
[19:42]Cue-home has kicked you from #prosapologian (Ain't your channel, bucko. Don't tell him to back off.)

Immediately after I was kicked, James confronted me in private with this:
*** Log file opened: 07/28/2001 7:43:30 PM
[19:43] <Cue-home> I was quoting from the web page article when I gave you those dates!!!! Good grief, man!
[19:43] <BigScott> James... why the kick?
[19:43] <BigScott> I was backing off... and asking sky to do the same so that you could present...
[19:45] <Cue-home> He was right, and this ain't your channel to be telling him to back off.
[19:45] <BigScott> I am humble enough to back down... and when I do so... did that make you "look bad?" so I had to be kicked?
[19:46] <BigScott> or it made sky look bad?
[19:46] <Cue-home> Besides, you have made such a fool of yourself this evening it's incredible. I have rarely seen anyone so utterly blind to the most basic, simple truths in the entirety of my ministry.
[19:46] <Cue-home> The man you were telling to "back off" has spent six years of his life doing research on a level you cannot even begin to comprehend, let alone emulate.

The FACT is that skyman (the Rev. David King) was WRONG! He relied on James White's FALSE INFORMATION regarding the DATE of Sermon 131. So when White attempts to throw his "six years of his life..." I say "SO WHAT?! IF HE'S WRONG HE'S WRONG AND HE SHOULD HAVE THE HUMILITY TO ADMIT IT - IF HE'S HALF THE "CHRISTIAN" HE CLAIMS TO BE!

[19:46] <Cue-home> He has spent thousands and thousands of dollars of his own money to obtain sources you don't even know exist to make sure he is accurate in what he says, and yet you can pop off out of your immense ignorance without a second thought. Absolutely unbelievable.

I really don't care HOW MUCH he spent - if he's WRONG, he's WRONG! All those thousands and thousands of dollars spent doesn't make ERROR into TRUTH.

[19:47] <BigScott> I only asked him to back off of his criticisms so that YOU could talk
[19:47] <Cue-home> You made yourself look bad, Scott. You make us all look wonderfully good.
[19:47] <BigScott> <sigh>
[19:47] <Cue-home> Forget it.
[19:47] <BigScott> perhaps...(agreeing that maybe I "made myself look bad") I will look into it... and IF I am wrong, I WILL retract... (parenthetical comment inserted afterward).
[19:47] <BigScott> I promise.
[19:48] <BigScott> log this if you want

No comment from James regarding my willingness to retract after I look into it... perhaps he KNOWS that if I look into it, I will vindicate myself? Who knows, I can't judge his motives for not responding to my offer, so let us proceed.

*** Log file closed: 07/28/2001 7:49:37 PM

Let the reader note, all I did was request skyman to back off from his criticisms so that James could present what he had to say. Obviously James was getting a bit emotionally charged and did not see that I was interested in hearing what HE had to say. He didn't notice skyman's jabs and personal attacks (probably because James himself was engaging in the same), so he kicked me from the channel using adolescent bully-talk ("Ain't your channel bucko..."). James did not detect that I was backing down. Now, had I known then what I know now, I would not have backed down. Let's proceed into what I found later that evening:

My statement is in agreement with Pope Pius XI's encyclical:

Pope Pius XI states in AD SALUTEM (On St. Augustine) Encyclical promulgated on 30 April 1930.
"17. "They know," he wrote, "that from the apostolic fountain-head issue answers to inquirers through all provinces. Particularly when a matter of Faith is in question, I think that our brothers and fellow-bishops should have recourse to Peter alone, namely to the author of the title and rank they hold, even as you, beloved Brethren, have now appealed, because he can give universal aid to all churches through the whole world."[30] When Augustine, accordingly, had learned of the Roman Pontiffs condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius, he uttered the following memorable words in a sermon to the people: "The views of two councils touching this controversy have been transmitted to the Apostolic See, and the answer has been sent back. The case has been settled. God grant that the error be ended likewise."[31] These words of his, condensed a trifle, have passed into a proverb: "Rome has spoken, the cause is finished." Again in another occasion, after citing the decision of Pope Zosimus put under the ban of his condemnation all Pelagians in all parts of the world, the saint wrote: "The Catholic doctrine is so ancient and well-grounded, so certain and clear in these words of the Apostolic See, that it would be criminal in a Christian to doubt of this truth."

Well, the two most damning statements to my argument tonight came from James (Cue-home) and skyman:

[19:37] <Cue-home> Fine....for your information, oh great researcher of the ancients, Sermon 131 is from 416; ZOSIMUS BECAME POPE IN 417.
[19:38] <skyman`> BigScott, Innocent was pope when sermo 131 was preached

James is proven wrong by his OWN CITATION! This ground was ALREADY COVERED in one of my initial responses to him at: On that page we find: (NA27 is James too)

[12:37] <NA27> Merdinger writes in _Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia_ (Eerdman's, 1999), pp. 728-729, "In a memorable sermon preached at Carthage in September 417, Augustine acknowledged the papacy's pivotal role in the controversy: "For two councils [Carthage and Milevis] have now sent reports to the Apostolic See; replies have come in turn. The dispute is finished.
Now, James may attempt (now) to claim that Merdinger was wrong, but HE QUOTED Merdinger, thus this is HIS ARGUMENT - so either he must retract what HE CITED previously, or what he is claiming tonight. James has stated two dates for the same sermon, he must retract one or the other. And skyman, Zosimus was Pope in 417, as James has already clarified.

Also, later in that same article written by White:

These comments are in reference to the heresy of Pelagianism, which Augustine had been battling in the church in North Africa. This sermon, delivered September 23, 416, begins, ironically, with an exposition of John 6:53 that is directly contradictory to modern Roman teaching on the doctrine of transubstantiation. Since so few take the time to actually read the contexts of the statements about which arguments are based in patristic sources, I provide the first two sections of this sermon, which show us the direction that Augustine was taking
But who is White citing here? No one, he has made a statement, on his own with the date of 416 - then, relying on his own misinformation, he blasted me earlier this evening. So whom do we trust? White or White quoting Merdinger? Will White admit that he must be "wrong" on one of these dates?

To the point of transubstantiation, I beg to differ on White's presuppositional conclusions - I have already more fully responded to the ENTIRE Sermon 131 in my response:, so I won't belabor that again here - several of the paragraphs James and I would actually AGREE on, but the point of John 6:53 precisely touches upon transubstantiation and if James could get beyond his presupposition that Catholicism MUST be wrong he might just see what the great St. Augustine was actually saying here. As I said, in my above cited response, I have posted and responded to the ENTIRE Sermon 131, not just excerpts here and there to support my argument, so if the reader wishes to see the full context of this sermon from which Catholic apologists derive "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" then please do go back to

Now to skyman` who jumped into this conversation (which is fine). I asked him which document did St. Augustine write between the time of Sermon 131 and Pope Zosimus' reversal, he responded:

[19:25] <skyman`> The name of the letter that the Africans sent to Zosimus (telling him to take a hike in essence) was "Postquam a nobis"
Yet, in the same response from James, in one of the initial IRC dialogs that started this whole discussion, James said:
>NA27< In Magnum Pondus and Postquam a Nobis the pope upbraided the Africans for their treatment of the two men. (

Included on James' own site:
"A second letter from Zosimus to the Africans, Postquam a nobis written in September 417," (

So skyman, WHO wrote Postquam a Nobis? James seems to think it was Zosimus! So who is it that is demonstrating a (to quote skyman himself) "constant lack of a grasp on the facts of history?"

Concluding Comments

I have presented that paragraph 10 of Sermon 131 was in response to Zosimus pronouncing Pelagius and Celestius to be "orthodox and Catholic." It is in response to Pope Zosimus' two letters Magnum Pondus and Postquam a Nobis. My presentation is completely consistent with my initial response to James' article on this subject - wherein James himself states these two letters are what Augustine is responding to! For James' complete article and my responses to it, please see: The significant event(s) that happened in 416 were the two (African) councils that declared Pelagius and Celestius to be heretics - and yes, Innocent was still Pope at this time. However, shortly after Zosimus took office, Zosimus was deceived by a false confession - that virtually all Catholic scholars agree on, was not well interogated. Thus, when Zosimus responded with the two letters Magnum Pondus and Postquam a Nobis (one of which skyman thinks St. Augustine wrote), the African bishops responded with their two councils - but when Rome had sent rescripts (Rome had spoken), at that point St. Augustine said, "the cause (for him) was finished" and concluded with "would that their error be concluded as well." So, I reiterate what I said in IRC earlier... Augustine STILL didn't "agree" with Rome's position on Pelagius and Celestius, but since Rome had spoken, the case was closed - as far as HE was concerned, but he concluded with a little "jab" of his own, hoping that the error would end soon as well. Fortunately, that error was not long lived - for when the Emperor banished Pelagius and Celestius from Rome, the pressure was mounting and either due to this pressure or perhaps after a more thorough re-evaluation Zosimus capitulated in declaring those two to be "orthodox and Catholic."

I also must clarify, Pope Zosimus was NOT embracing Pelagianism, rather based on a false confession, he embraced Pelagius himself and Celestius himself - not the error they had been teaching. I say this because both James and skyman have attempted to use this event to say that the Bishop of Rome embraced and taught an heresy, as an attack on papal infallibility - and THIS issue has NOTHING to do with infallibility. I also pointed out to James in

Yes James, the Bishop of Rome can be deceived. The Bishop of Rome can make mistakes. Again you fall into the errant concept that the Pope is "impeccable." The only time the Pope is protected by infallibility is:
  1. When he is presenting a teaching to the entire Church (not just a portion of it);
  2. When he is teaching on a matter of Faith or Morals;
  3. When he pronounces the penalties for going against said teaching.
All three of these need to be in place before a teaching from the Pope can be infallible. Again, this is a FACT that has been pointed out to James MANY times in the past. For him to continually imply this standard of impeccability is truly disingenuous.
Then we read from Schaff:
The question took another turn when it was brought before the Roman see. Two North African synods, in 416, one at Carthage and one at Mileve (now Mela), again condemned the Pelagian error, and communicated their sentence to pope Innocent.1735  A third and more confidential letter was addressed to him by five North African bishops, of whom Augustine was one.1736  Pelagius also sent him a letter and a confession of faith, which, however, were not received in due time.

Innocent understood both the controversy and the interests of the Roman see. He commended the Africans for having addressed themselves to the church of St. Peter, before which it was seemly that all the affairs of Christendom should be brought; he expressed his full agreement with the condemnation of Pelagius, Coelestius, and their adherents; but he refrained from giving judgment respecting the synod of Diospolis.

But soon afterwards (in 417) Innocent died, and was succeeded by Zosimus, who was apparently of Oriental extraction (417–418).  At this juncture, a letter from Pelagius to Innocent was received, in which he complained of having suffered wrong, and gave assurance of his orthodoxy. Coelestius appeared personally in Rome, and succeeded by his written and oral explanations in satisfying Zosimus. He, like Pelagius, demonstrated with great fulness his orthodoxy on points not at all in question, represented the actually controverted points as unimportant questions of the schools, and professed himself ready, if in error, to be corrected by the judgment of the Roman bishop.

Zosimus, who evidently had no independent theological opinion whatever, now issued (417) to the North African bishops an encyclical letter accompanied by the documentary evidence, censuring them for not having investigated the matter more thoroughly, and for having aspired, in foolish, overcurious controversies, to know more than the Holy Scriptures. At the same time he bore emphatic testimony to the orthodoxy of Pelagius and Coelestius, and described their chief opponents, Heros and Lazarus, as worthless characters, whom he had visited with excommunication and deposition. They in Rome, he says, could hardly refrain from tears, that such men, who so often mentioned the gratia Dei and the adjutorium divinum, should have been condemned as heretics. Finally he entreated the bishops to submit themselves to the authority of the Roman see.

This temporary favor of the bishop of Rome towards the Pelagian heresy is a significant presage of the indulgence of later popes for Pelagianizing tendencies, and of the papal condemnation of Jansenism.

The Africans were too sure of their cause, to yield submission to so weak a judgment, which, moreover, was in manifest conflict with that of Innocent. In a council at Carthage, in 417 or 418, they protested, respectfully but decidedly, against the decision of Zosimus, and gave him to understand that he was allowing himself to be greatly deceived by the indefinite explanations of Coelestius. In a general African council held at Carthage in 418, the bishops, over two hundred in number, defined their opposition to the Pelagian errors, in eight (or nine) Canons, which are entirely conformable to the Augustinian view.  They are in the following tenor:

  1. Whosoever says, that Adam was created mortal, and would, even without sin, have died by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
  2. Whoever rejects infant baptism, or denies original sin in children, so that the baptismal formula, "for the remission of sins," would have to be taken not in a strict, but in a loose sense, let him be anathema.
  3. Whoever says, that in the kingdom of heaven, or elsewhere, there is a certain middle place, where children dying without baptism live happy (beate vivant), while yet without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, i.e., into eternal life, let him be anathema.
The fourth canon condemns the doctrine that the justifying grace of God merely effects the forgiveness of sins already committed; and the remaining canons condemn other superficial views of the grace of God and the sinfulness of man.

At the same time the Africans succeeded in procuring from the emperor Honorius edicts against the Pelagians. These things produced a change in the opinions of Zosimus, and about the middle of the year 418, he issued an encyclical letter to all the bishops of both East and West, pronouncing the anathema upon Pelagius and Coelestius (who had meanwhile left Rome), and declaring his concurrence with the decisions of the council of Carthage in the doctrines of the corruption of human nature, of baptism, and of grace. Whoever refused to subscribe the encyclical, was to be deposed, banished from his church, and deprived of his property. (

Thus I conclude THIS article standing FIRM on what I said in IRC. I make NO RETRACTION and NO APOLOGY for my positions taken in his chat channel this evening. Now, both James White and David King (skyman) have made contradictory and even fallacious statements, will THEY retract? Will THEY apologize for all the namecalling they did to me? I'm not holding my breath - whereas it would be nice to get such from them, if they do, this would be a first. I "backed down" from the debate in IRC because White through a date at me that I could not verify "on the fly" - much like he did to Fr. Stravinskas (Fr. S.) in their recent debate on Purgatory, when Fr. S. mentioned "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" James jumped all over him - stating "Augustine didn't use THOSE WORDS." And again I agree, "THOSE WORDS" were not used, but St. Augustine DID "SAY THAT" using other words! So again I assert that White was being disingenuous when he attacked Fr. S. (and I grant you, Fr. S. should have been prepared to defend the "Roma locuta argument" and wasn't. It was from THAT POINT ONWARD that Fr. S. was on the defensive, seemed nervous and even blurted out things that really should NOT have been said in that forum with THAT audience.

I bring this out for others who confront White. White looks for a weakness, ANY weakness, then exploits it. As we can see by what he did in the Fr. Stravinskas debate on Purgatory AND in tonight's IRC discussion, James does so to get his opponent to "look bad" thus it appears James "wins" the debate/discussion. Then, when I have taken the time to expose the TRUTH, James objects, "Why can't the debate/discussion stand on it's own?" Well James, IF the WHOLE TRUTH had been known during the initial discussion/debate I would agree with you, such "after-thoughts" would not be necessary. If you ever stop using this tactic, and/or as more and more of us Catholic apologists become aware of and prepare for this tactic of yours then the debates and discussion would indeed stand or fall on their own merits. The discussion from this evening, for those who watched it transpire, it would seem you "won" even that you "shellacked" me with your debating skills - but was the TRUTH brought out? Yes, it was by me, but since I had to back down to check on your anachronisms, by APPEARANCES you "won" because you didn't back down. But now that I have exposed the errors that you presented, will YOU "back down?" Will YOU retract and apologize for your errors and insults?

(Later they DO admit to their error, but have never apologized for their namecalling and belittling comments, which they based in their fallacious statements.

To see my "final" response (unless White and King attempt to respond again, and in light of the fact they would again have to confront their erroneous statements, I doubt this will happen) click here).