Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

Very well, you have just proven that your claim to “Material Sufficiency” is jettisoned as soon as it becomes inconvenient. And you complain about a lack of consistency among protestants in how we define/practice Sola Scriptura?

Yes, I do complain about SS, but no, I have not jettisoned the material suffiency of the Scriptures. How do you think people were saved before Mary was born? How did they get saved while she walked the earth? How are people saved who don’t know about Jesus mother?

The scriptures are sufficient to lead us to salvation. It does not mean they include everything.

They sure don’t have the Tyrannus lectures.

If you find it, please burn me a copy of it.

You got it!

Then please stop using 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15 or 2 Thess. 3:6 as a carte blanche proof text to claim that a current dogma of the Roman Catholic Church found nowhere in Scripture was taught orally by any of the apostles.

There is no such claim. There are no doctrines in Catholicism that are not referenced in Scripture. Besides, you did not read what I wrote. "Just because Paul did not happen to mention a certain doctrine in one of his letters does not mean that it is “not even mentioned in Scripture”.

You are saying that, since the Assumption of Mary is not mentioned by Paul in a letter He wrote, very possibly before she passed, that it is “found nowhere in scripture”. This is false.

The sacred traditions mentioned in those verses you posted above are part of the Divine Deposit of faith. We know what the Church believed by their practices, as well as their writings. We find prayers and liturgies that reference these doctrines from the earliest times. These are part of the Sacred Tradition.

 

[paul_c]

In other words, Clement is simply affirming that declaring ourselves to be justified by “our words,” is not the proof of our justification, but rather our works; because here it is our works contrasted with our words, not our faith. He says, “Let us clothe ourselves,” etc., i.e. demonstrate in deed that what we believe concerning ourselves is true, rather than merely claiming it. Otherwise, what he goes on to say two chapters later is utterly meaningless. For he goes on to say…

It’s clear, then, that Clement denies in no uncertain terms that our works, performed in a state of grace, serve meritoriously in any sense as the grounds on which we’re justified, and declares that faith, not our works, has always been the means by which God justifies all men.

Algo,
The problem here is that you don’t understand Catholic teaching and hence, you come to the wrong conclusion.

The church teaches the following:

1> men enter the state of grace (justified in your terms) by being baptized. This is a physical covenential act that is the outgrowth of faith. When we are baptized we are reborn in the spirit, made a member of the church, forgiven all sins, and given the grace necessary to enter heaven. As Clement points out, we don’t earn baptism (justification), it is freely given to all those that ask for it in faith.

1. Once justified by baptism, we must follow Jesus or we fall out of the state of grace and will be condemned. We do this by doing god’s will for us, which is to love God and Neighbor. Love is doing things for the benefit of others without expecting anything in return. We must also avoid Mortal sin, which is deliberately turning away from God by doing something of grave nature we know is contrary to God’s will. If we die in the state of Grace, we will enter heaven (although if we still have the tendency to sin, we will be purified of that tendency in Purgatory first)
2. If we fall from Grace through sin, through God’s abundant mercy, we can be reconciled to God through the sacrament of reconciliation: (contrition, confession to a priest, repentance and penance, followed by absolution).
3. The Grace within us that allows us to do the works we are called to do and to avoid sin is strengthed through the eucharist, prayer, and by the practice of goods works and devotions. Through these things, we become increasingly holy as we align ourselves with God’s will. The ultimate alignment is to be fully self giving. This is what is required in heaven.

So you see, justification is freely given as a respnse to our faith and desire. But once justified, we must fulfill our end of the covenant to enter heaven and that is to do God’s will. If you understand this, then Clement’s comments make perfect sense.

 

[onenow1]

Here’s another one worth considering:

And Calvin’s commentary:

Hi , Algo,
Indeed ! Being trained as a humanist lawyer, I can completely, understand how the age of enlightenment came into play and continues even today. The fact remains as Paul C stated in a response, and as my original post intimated, the three reformers knowing the authority of the church, especially Martin,disobeyed the governing authorities.

Peace

 

[Algo1]

First of all, let me make a slight correction. Earlier I said that the SDAs reject the concept of the Holy Spirit as being a divine person. I meant the Jehovah Witnesses. Now let us move on to your above quote. As a side note, of course I believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but I’ll just be playing devil’s advocate when examining whether or not this doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture.

In the above quote you’re calling it a relation. Objectively speaking, the text invokes God, and the reference to the Holy Ghost can be argued to simply be an expression of the Spirit of God which pours forth from the Father and Son. As such, it can be simply considered as “God’s power in action.” For example, this is what we see being expressed by God’s Spirit in Genesis 1:2. Therefore, the statement “The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” can simply be a poetic way in invoking the power of God in the name of God. Just because something is recognized as having a name does not mean that it is a person. For example, in the old police dramas a cop would often yell, “Halt, in the name of the law!” The law is not a person.

I should also point out that the wisdom books of the Old Testament repeatedly refer to wisdom as a person. The anthropomorphic terminology therein is just as strong, if not stronger, than that used in the New Testament for the Holy Spirit. And yet the Jews never saw this as anything more than a poetic expression for the gift of wisdom the Father makes available to people. Based on this, someone could argue that the same thing is at work in descriptions of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament (i.e., the NT writers were simply carrying on this scriptural tradition).

In Hebrew there is no way of saying “holiest”. To express this idea, Hebrew uses the triple “holy” format. Nothing more is being implied here in Isaiah and you will find that Protestant Bible commentaries concur. I should also point out that the Jews have been reading Isaiah for centuries and they have never gleaned from this that God is more than one person.

The reference to the Holy Spirit can simply be a reference to the power of God which is working the grace of baptism. Also, let us suppose (for the sake of the argument) that God exists in, say, seven distinct persons, but most of them are not involved in human affairs (for whatever reason). Why is it a rule that a baptismal formula would have to invoke all their names rather than just the names of the persons who are active in the sacrament of baptism? In other words, why does it logically follow that the biblical formula for baptism also has to serve as the all-encompassing list for all the persons of God?

And in quoting the Comma Johannaem you are not quoting the Bible, which is what I challenged you to do. Consider these critiques of the Comma Johannaem:

“These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.” [1]

“The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.” [2]
Greek fathers

“The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.”

Ok, let me re-word my previous post. Maybe I can make my response a bit more comprehensive (or maybe not).

I challenge you to use the Bible to prove that the Holy Spirit is a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son. Note that certain groups such as the SDAs categorically deny that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person for the fact that it is not in the Bible.

Also, I challenge you to use the Bible to demonstrate that the divine persons are specifically limited to three and only three. If you are unable to succeed in both these challenges then you will have to conclude that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is derived from Sacred Tradition.

Moreover, I am still waiting for you to respond to Post #146

continued:

 

[Algo1]

I challenge you to use the Bible to prove that the Holy Spirit is a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son. Note that certain groups such as the SDAs categorically deny that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person for the fact that it is not in the Bible.

Also, I challenge you to use the Bible to demonstrate that the divine persons are specifically limited to three and only three. If you are unable to succeed in both these challenges then you will have to conclude that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is derived from Sacred Tradition.

Moreover, I am still waiting for you to respond to Post #146

If on the other hand they suppose the sub-numeration to benefit the Spirit alone, they must be taught that the Spirit is spoken of together with the Lord in precisely the same manner in which the Son is spoken of with the Father.* “The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” is delivered in like manner, and, according to the co-ordination of words delivered in baptism, the relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same as that of the Son to the Father.* And if the Spirit is co-ordinate with the Son, and the Son with the Father, it is obvious that the Spirit is also co-ordinate with the Father.*
It is said: “There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” (1 Jn. 5:7). To those who ask, “Three what?” we answer, with Augustine (De Trin. vii, 4), “Three persons.” Therefore there are but three persons in God.
There can be only three persons in God. For it was shown above that the several persons are the several subsisting relations really distinct from each other. But a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must needs belong to the same person. Since then paternity and filiation are opposite relations, they belong necessarily to two persons. Therefore the subsisting paternity is the person of the Father; and the subsisting filiation is the person of the Son. The other two relations are not opposed to either of these, but they are opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person generating and the person generated proceeded from the person spirating; and this is against what was laid down above We must consequently admit that spiration belongs to the person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
continued:

 

[Algo1]

continued:
So, then, the Father is holy, the Son is holy, and the Spirit is holy, but they are not three Holies; for there is one Holy God, one Lord. For the true holiness is one, as the true Godhead is one, as that true holiness belonging to the Divine Nature is one.
So everything which we esteem holy proclaims that Sole Holiness. Cherubim and Seraphim with unwearied voices praise Him and say: “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God of Sabaoth.” They say it, not once, lest you should believe that there is but one; not twice, lest you should exclude the Spirit; they say not holies [in the plural], lest you should imagine that there is plurality, but they repeat thrice and say the same word, that even in a hymn you may understand the distinction of Persons in the Trinity, and the oneness of the Godhead and while they say this they proclaim God. We too find nothing of more worth, whereby we are able to proclaim God, than the calling Him holy. Everything is too low for God, too low for the Lord. And therefore consider from this fact also whether one ought at all to derogate from the Holy Spirit, whose Name is the praise of God. For thus is the Father praised, thus is the Son also praised, in the same manner as the Spirit also is named and praised. The Seraphim utter praise, the whole company of the blessed utter praise, inasmuch as they call God holy, the Son holy, the Spirit holy. How, then, does He not possess all that pertains to God, Who is named by priests in baptism with the Father and the Son, and is invoked in the oblations, is proclaimed by the Seraphim in heaven with the Father and the Son, dwells in the Saints with the Father and the Son, is poured upon the just, is given as the source of inspiration to the prophets? And for this reason in the divine Scripture all is called θεόπνευστος, because God inspires what the Spirit has spoken.
Or if they are unwilling to allow that the Holy Spirit has all things which pertain to God, and can do all things, let them say what He has not, and what He cannot do. For like as the Son has all things, and the Father grudges not to give all things to the Son according to His nature, having given to Him that which is greater than all, as the Scripture bears witness, saying: “That which My Father hath given unto Me is greater than all.” So too the Spirit has of Christ that which is greater than all, because righteousness knows not grudging.
So, then, if we attend diligently, we comprehend here also the oneness of the Divine Power. He says: “That which My Father hath given unto Me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.” For if we rightly showed above that the Holy Spirit is the Hand of the Father, the same is certainly the Hand of the Father which is the Hand of the Son, since the Same is the Spirit of the Father Who is the Spirit of the Son. Therefore whosoever of us receives eternal life in this Name of the Trinity, as he is not torn from the Father; so he is not torn from the Son, so too he is not torn from the Spirit. Again, from the very fact that the Father is said to have given to the Son, and the Spirit to have received from the Son, as it is written: “He shall glorify Me, for He shall take of Mine, and shall declare it unto you” (which He seems to have said rather of the office of distributing, than of the prerogative of Divine Power, for those whom the Son redeemed the Spirit also, Who was to sanctify them, received), from those very words, I say, from which they construct their sophistry, the Unity of the Godhead is perceived, not the need of a gift.
The Father gave by begetting, not by adoption; He gave as it were that which was contained in the very prerogative of the Divine Nature, not what was lacking as it were by favour of His bounty. And so because the Son acquires persons to Himself as the Father does; so gives life as does the Father, He expressed His equality with the Father in the Unity of Power, saying: “I and the Father are One.” For when He says, “I and the Father,” equality is revealed; when He says, “are One,” Unity is asserted. Equality excludes confusion; Unity excludes separation. Equality distinguishes between the Father and the Son; Unity does not separate the Father and the Son.
Blessed, then, and venerable, blessed and most sacred, and altogether worthy to be compared with those celestial praises of the Angelic Host, be the confession which ascribes glory to the one Lord God with a threefold ascription of holiness. For this reason moreover she insists emphatically upon the oneness of the Person of Christ, that she may not go beyond the mystery of the Trinity (that is by making in effect a Quaternity.)
Eric, does this help? I’ll see what I can do with #146 now.

 

[Ignatius33]

And since the Pope is not God, then according to Augustine he (the Pope) is Not Infallible

Perhaps you misunderstand the doctrine of papal infallibility. It has nothing to do with the Pope himself having some sort of God-like powers. Papal infallibility simply means that Providence will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in a matter of religion. It is all about God protecting His Church from falling into error, as He explicitly promised in Matthew 16:18 when He said that He would build His Church on Peter and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it.

Adrian Fortescue writes the following on the doctrine of papal infallibility, which may be helpful here:

“It is as well to state again plainly what it does mean. It does not mean any sort of inspiration given to the Pope. It does not mean that he will always know or understand more about our religion than anyone else. A Pope might be quite ignorant and a very poor theologian. He may make a mistake as a private theologian; only God will take care that he does not commit the whole Church to it. Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all. It does not mean that the Pope will always give the wisest or best decision or that what he says will always be well advised or opportune. He may not speak at all; he may preserve a regrettable silence, just when it would be greatly to the good of the Church if he did speak. But if he does speak, and if he speaks in such a way as to commit the Church [e.g., during the Pelagian controversy], then what he says will not be false. It may be inadequate. When does the Pope so speak as to commit the whole Church? This is what we mean by a decision ex cathedra. The First Vatican Council defined that the Pope’s decisions ex cathedra cannot be false. It say nothing about any other kind of papal pronouncement; it explains an ‘ex cathedra’ statement as (1) a definition, (2) of dogma on faith or morals that is (3) binding on the whole Church . . .

“Understood so, papal infallibility is so obvious a consequence of the primacy that it would seem hardly worth special attention, were it not that some people about 1870 were not yet clear on this point. Put together three ideas: first, that the Pope is the last court of appeal in matters of faith no less than in those of discipline; second, that the decisions of the final court must be accepted as final; and third, that God cannot allow his whole Church to fall into error – and you have the whole of papal infallibility at once” (The Early Papacy, 47-48).

 

[Ignatius33]

No, actually I said ‘many’ of them are. Do you by chance have a source for that?

While Augustine might not use the precise words “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” over and over again, he does maintain the substance of those words repeatedly. Certainly, there are many, many passages that are more than merely “complimentary” to the Pope and his authority in the Church. Here are some relevant passages…

1. After the Synod of Carthage (416 AD) condemned Pelagianism, it submitted its decrees to Pope Innocent (r. 401-417 AD), who responded as follows: “In seeking the things of God, . . . following the examples of ancient tradition, . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow *the Apostle himself from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have merged *. . .They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the total authority of this See” (Letter to the Council of Carthage [417 AD]).

In response to the Council of Milevis (416 AD), which similarly condemned Pelagianism, Pope Innocent wrote: “Rightly and properly you have consulted the judgment of the apostle’s honor, I mean the honor of him who has, besides the things that are without, the care of all the Churches . . . How is it you confirm this by your act, except that you know that we always send answers from the apostolic fount to those who seek them from all provinces? Especially whenever a question of faith is raised I hold that all our brothers and fellow-bishops should refer it to Peter only, that is, to the heir of his name and honor, as you have now done. For he can help all Churches in common throughout the whole world” (Epistle 30 [417 AD]).

When Milevis received this letter, St. Augustine uttered his famous line: “[On this matter of the Pelagians] two Councils [at Carthage and Milevis] have already been sent to the Apostolic See *; and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end [due to the authority of Rome]; would that the error too might sometime be at an end!” (Sermons [inter 391 – 430 AD]). This is the origin of the saying: “Roma locuta est, causa finita est,” i.e., Rome has spoken, the case is finished. Notice that Augustine read the unambiguously decisive language of Pope Innocent’s letters and has no quibble with them – instead, he agrees that the Pope had authority to resolve the matter once and for all.

1. Writing about Pope Innocent’s decision on Pelagianism, Augustine says: “[Pope Innocent] in reference to all things, wrote back to us in the same way in which it is lawful and the duty of the *Apostolic See *to write” (Sermon 186).
2. Again, writing about the Pope and the Pelagian issue, Augustine stated: “Reply to him [Pope Innocent], yea, rather to the Lord Himself, whose testimony that prelate used” (Lib. I. C. Julian c. 4). In other words, Pope Innocent had spoken for God in this matter, and his word should be obeyed as the word of the Lord. The tone of this statement recalls Clement of Rome’s similar statement of authority in regard to the eastern Church of Corinth in the first century.
3. Augustine also remarked: “Concerning this matter [Pelagianism] all doubt has been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory” (Contra duas Epist. Pelag [before 430 AD]). Again, a clear statement that Rome had the final say in the matter.
4. And again: “The new-fangled Pelagian heretics have been most justly condemned by the authority of Catholic councils and of the Apostolic See” (On the Soul and its Origin, Book II, 17).
5. Similarly, he wrote: “What could be more clear or more manifest than the judgment of the Apostolic See?” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book II).
6. Augustine said: “There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church . . . The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius], keeps me here” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” [397 AD]). To say that the successor of Peter, the Pope, “keeps” Augustine in the Church is more than a mere compliment and is precisely what Catholics through the ages would say (and what Protestants deny).
7. Augustine proves the authority of Bishop Caecilian of Carthage from his being “united by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supreme authority of the Apostolic throne has always been held” (Epistle 43, 7).
8. Augustine wrote to Auxilius, a fellow bishop, as follows: “I desire with the Lord’s help to use the necessary measures in our Council, and, if it be necessary, to write to the Apostolic See; that, by a unanimous authoritative decision of all, we may have the course which ought to be followed to an end as well” (Letter 250). Again, note that appeal to Rome is the final resort for an authoritative decision.

Finally, Bernard Otten writes: “In matters of faith, Augustine says, it is the duty of all to have recourse to the Apostolic See and its pastoral ministry. It is true, the oft quoted phrase: ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est,’ is not found verbally in any writings of Augustine; but its equivalent occurs again and again. And this is all that is required to make him a staunch supporter of Papal infallibility” (A Manual of the History of Dogmas, 336).*

 

[Ignatius33]

It’s clear, then, that Clement denies in no uncertain terms that our works, performed in a state of grace, serve meritoriously in any sense as the grounds on which we’re justified, and declares that faith, not our works, has always been the means by which God justifies all men.

Nothing St. Clement of Rome says is incompatible with Catholic teaching, as paul c explains in post 207. To the extent Clement is condemning works righteousness, all I can say is amen.

It is fairly easy to pick out ECF passages that may seem to support Protestant notions of justification or salvation. But this is because the Protestant and Catholic viewpoints share many similarities. It is in the distinctions between the two systems that the ECFs become one-sidedly in favor of Catholic teaching. St. Augustine is an excellent example of this. Many Protestants claim him for their own on the justification issue, but he is decidedly Catholic on points where Protestant and Catholic teaching diverge.

Indeed, respected Protestant historians and theologians, like Alistair McGrath, candidly admit that the Reformers’ conception of justification was a “theological novum” never before followed in the history of Christianity. I therefore find it a little ironic when Protestants try to demolish Catholic teaching with St. Vincent’s dictum that Christians must follow that Faith which has been believed “everywhere, always and by all” (The Notebooks [434 AD]). For there is no evidence that the doctrine on which the Reformation was launched – sola fide and its corollary justification via a one-time forensic application of God’s grace – was followed “anywhere, ever or by anyone” until the 1500’s. The same goes for the other pillar of the Reformation – sola Scriptura – a notion totally alien to the ECFs (and nowhere explicitly laid out in Scripture itself). Put differently, there is no proof that this other core Protestant doctrine was followed “anywhere, ever or by anyone” until the 1500’s, and there is reams of evidence to the contrary (see posts 68 to 71).

 

[Ignatius33]

INot according to one of your Church Historians:

You quote Klaus Schatz, a Catholic historian, for the proposition that Augustine did not really acknowledge the authority of the Pope. All I can say is that Schatz follows a modernist, “trajectory” view of the development of doctrine that is inconsistent with the traditional Catholic understanding of it (read Cardinal Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” for the real deal).

Suffice to say, I would not subscribe to this basic, modernist thesis of Schatz’s:

“The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably ‘no.’” (Papal Primacy: From its Origins to its Present, 2).

In other words, in Schatz’s view, neither Jesus nor the authors of the Gospels believed in the Primacy. That is liberal/modernist hogwash (from a Catholic perspective, anyway), rooted in an unhealthy skepticism of Scripture and Tradition. Unfortunately, Protestants and Catholics alike are still beleagured by modern, liberal scholarship.

 

[Algo1]

I haven’t been following this aspect of the thread very closely, but are you suggesting that the Catholic Church fell into a state of apostasy at Trent in its statements concerning transubstantiation?

If that is the case then maybe the “audience of crickets” stems from the fact that this may be getting off-topic. If you want to discuss the idea of apostasy within the context of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation then I invite you to start a new thread discussion and I will be glad to participate. Or, if you believe that it is, indeed, relevant to this thread’s discussion then make a case for it, and I will consider discussing the topic herein.

This likewise may be getting off-topic. But Orthodox Christians, Old Catholics, certain groups within Anglicanism and even Muslims have historically taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary in some form or fashion. For example, note what is listed within Wikipedia under “Other Churches.”

Ok, I’m reading the wiki listing for “Other Churches”. This is what they present.

“Belief in the Immaculate Conception is not a doctrine within Anglicanism, although it is believed by many Anglo-Catholics.”

I wonder if these are some of the more conservative folks that are leaving the hemorrhaging Church of England. Is this an official teaching or just a private belief held by some?

"In the Church of England’s Common Worship prayer book, 8 December is designated a Lesser Festival in honor of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.[44] This feast includes no specific mention of the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but bears witness to the unique gift of grace of Mary.[45]

Well this seems to be official but not very significant.

"The report “Mary: Faith and Hope in Christ”, by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, concluded that the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions.[46] But the report expressed concerns that the Roman Catholic dogmatic definitions of these concepts implies them to be “revealed by God” and stated that: “The question arises for Anglicans, however, as to whether these doctrines concerning Mary are revealed by God in a way which must be held by believers as a matter of faith.”[47]

I guess not accepting them as Revelation could be a problem. Not to mention them as a matter of faith.

“Orthodox Christians say that Mary was without sin for her entire life, but they generally do not share the Augustinian and Medieval Roman Catholic Church’s views on original sin.”

That wasn’t a problem for Pelagius either.

“In Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, which is Oriental Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox, there is some suggestion that Mary was created immaculate, as seen in the following:”

Oh great, the example they give is from an African Book of Legends .

“The text, in its existing form, is at least seven hundred years old, and is considered by many Ethiopian Christians and Rastafarians to be an inspired and a reliable account.”

Rastafarians (and Muslims) are always reliable commentators on Christian history and doctrine.

“He cleansed eve’s body and sanctified it and made for it a dwelling in her for adam’s salvation. She * was born without blemish, for He made her pure, without pollution, and she redeemed his debt without carnal union and embrace…Through the transgression of eve we died and were buried, and by the purity of mary we receive honour, and are exalted to the heights.”*

"Old Catholics do not reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and some of their parishes venerate Mary as immaculately conceived and celebrate the feast of her Immaculate Conception; but they do not accept its definition as a dogma, since they reject papal infallibility and with it the Pope’s authority to define dogma by himself

"
I guess that’s what makes them “Old Catholics”. Those “accretions” just keep thinning the herd.
continued:

 

[Algo1]

continued:

“The third chapter of the Qur’an states beliefs in both the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Virgin birth of Jesus.[55][56] The Qur’an mentions Mary over 30 times, traces her genealogy to Abraham and Noah and states the belief in her Immaculate Conception.[57]
George Sale reports, in his translation of the Qur’an, that the Immaculate Conception had long been an Islamic tradition.[20] William Bernard Ullathorne, a 19th century Catholic bishop stated that it is possible that the prophet Muhammad interacted with Christians in the great fair of Bosra and learned of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception there.[21]
In the Islamic tradition of Muhammad, Mary and her Son were the only children who could not be touched by Satan at the moment of their birth, for God imposed a veil between them and Satan.[58] According to author Shabbir Akhtar, the Islamic perspective on Mary’s Immaculate Conception is compatible with the Catholic doctrine of the same topic.[59]”

Now this is fascinating, in case you didn’t know, Muhammad believed that All prophets sent from Allah could NOT sin. Including David, which is very odd because he recounts the confrontation of David by Nathan but never tells us what the subject was. His tremendous knowledge of Christianity made him conclude that the Trinity consisted of The Father, Mary and Jesus.
Try to read Surah 3 starting at verse 36 and following. Eventually you see Muhammad telling tales from the Gnostic Gospels about Jesus making a bird out of clay (v.49) and breathing life into it. Now if Muhammad believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as defined by Ineffabilis deus then he would be the first recorded in history to do so.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

continued:
This from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.p.201.

Since the seventh century a Feast of the Conception of St. Anne (Conceptio S. Annae), that is, of the passive conception of Mary, was celebrated in the Greek Eastern Church. The celebration and the Feast spread later to the West, first to sourthern Italy, then to Ireland and England, under the title, Conceptio Beatae Mariae Virginis. The object of the celebration of the feast was initially the active conception of St. Anne, which, according to the Proto-Gospel of St. James, occurred after a long period of childlessness, and was foretold by an angel, as an extraordinary manifestation of God’s grace.
At the beginning of the twelth century, the British monk Eadmer, a pupil of St. Anselm of Canterbury, and Osbert of Clare, advocated the Immaculate (passive) Conception of Mary, that is, her conception free from original sin. Eadmer wrote the first monograph on this subject. On the other hand, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, on the occassion of the institution of the Feast in Lyons (about 1140), warned the faithful that this was an unfounded innovation, and taught that Mary was sanctified after conception only, that is, when she was already in the womb. Under the influence of St. Bernard, the leading theologians of the twelth and thirteenth centuries (Petres Lombardus, St. Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquanis), rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Their difficulty was that they had not yet found the way to bring Mary’s freedom from original sin into consonance with the universality of original sin, and with the necessity of all men for redemption. The correct approach to the final solution of the problem was first achieved by the Franciscan theologian, William of Ware, and this was perfected by his great pupil John Duns Scotus (1308). The latter taught that the animation (animatio) need not precede the sanctification in order of time (ordo temporis) but only in order of concept (ordo naturae). Through the introduction of the concept of praeredemptio (preredemption), he succeeded in reconciling Mary’s freedom from original sin with her necessity for redemption. The preservation from original sin, is according to Scotus, the most perfect kind of redemption. Thus, it was fitting that Christ should redeem His mother in this manner. The Franciscan Order allied itself with Scotus, and in contrast to the Dominican Order, decisively advocated the doctring and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

In the year 1439, the Council of Basle, in its Thirty-sixth Session, which, however, had no ecumenical validity, declared in favour of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Sixtux IV (1471-1484) endowed the celebration of the Feast with indulgences, and forbade the mutual censuring of the disputing factions. The Council of Trent, in its Decree on original sin, makes the significant declaration “that it was not its intention to involve Mary, the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin and Mother of God in this decree”. In 1567, Pope Pius V condemned the proposition advanced by Baius, that nobody but Christ had been free from original, and that Mary’s sorrows and her death were a punishment for actual sins or for original sin. Popes Paul V (1616), Gregory XV (1622) and Alexander VII (1661), advocated the doctrine. On the eight day of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX, having consulted the entire episcopate, and speaking Ex Cathedra, declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be a Dogma of the Faith.

Now Eric, remember that Ineffabilis deus claims that this was revelation. Does not revelation end with the last Apostle?
Or as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it:

"That Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit — “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude, 2) — for which the Church was to “contend” but to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicæa, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition. "

 

[Algo1]

Algo,
The problem here is that you don’t understand Catholic teaching and hence, you come to the wrong conclusion.

The church teaches the following:

1> men enter the state of grace (justified in your terms) by being baptized. This is a physical covenential act that is the outgrowth of faith. When we are baptized we are reborn in the spirit, made a member of the church, forgiven all sins, and given the grace necessary to enter heaven. As Clement points out, we don’t earn baptism (justification), it is freely given to all those that ask for it in faith.

1. Once justified by baptism, we must follow Jesus or we fall out of the state of grace and will be condemned. We do this by doing god’s will for us, which is to love God and Neighbor. Love is doing things for the benefit of others without expecting anything in return. We must also avoid Mortal sin, which is deliberately turning away from God by doing something of grave nature we know is contrary to God’s will. If we die in the state of Grace, we will enter heaven (although if we still have the tendency to sin, we will be purified of that tendency in Purgatory first)
2. If we fall from Grace through sin, through God’s abundant mercy, we can be reconciled to God through the sacrament of reconciliation: (contrition, confession to a priest, repentance and penance, followed by absolution).
3. The Grace within us that allows us to do the works we are called to do and to avoid sin is strengthed through the eucharist, prayer, and by the practice of goods works and devotions. Through these things, we become increasingly holy as we align ourselves with God’s will. The ultimate alignment is to be fully self giving. This is what is required in heaven.

So you see, justification is freely given as a respnse to our faith and desire. But once justified, we must fulfill our end of the covenant to enter heaven and that is to do God’s will. If you understand this, then Clement’s comments make perfect sense.

Clement of Rome:
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men;

paulc, Clement is speaking of all believers including those in the Old Testament. Where are you getting the idea that he is speaking of Baptism when he speaks of justification? There is no mention of “working the Roman Catholic system”.

 

[guanophore]

If on the other hand they suppose the sub-numeration to benefit the Spirit alone, they must be taught that the Spirit is spoken of together with the Lord in precisely the same manner in which the Son is spoken of with the Father.* “The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” is delivered in like manner, and, according to the co-ordination of words delivered in baptism, the relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same as that of the Son to the Father.* And if the Spirit is co-ordinate with the Son, and the Son with the Father, it is obvious that the Spirit is also co-ordinate with the Father.*
It is said: “There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” (1 Jn. 5:7). To those who ask, “Three what?” we answer, with Augustine (De Trin. vii, 4), “Three persons.” Therefore there are but three persons in God.

Sorry, Algo, this won’t do. You are cheating! Eric asked you to prove this from Scripture. You are not allowed to use any Catholic saints to bolster your position. Autustine’s writings are soaked with Sacred Tradition.

There can be only three persons in God. For it was shown above that the several persons are the several subsisting relations really distinct from each other.

Yes, but you have failed to prove this using only Scripture.

But a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must needs belong to the same person. Since then paternity and filiation are opposite relations, they belong necessarily to two persons. Therefore the subsisting paternity is the person of the Father; and the subsisting filiation is the person of the Son. The other two relations are not opposed to either of these, but they are opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person generating and the person generated proceeded from the person spirating; and this is against what was laid down above We must consequently admit that spiration belongs to the person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
continued:

Please don’t continue this way, Algo. It is against the forum rules foryou to cut and paste without citing your sources, and the sources from whence these passages come are Catholic.

Not only that, the Summa Theologica is using a source outside of scripture, so it does not answer the challenge. Try again.

 

[guanophore]

continued:
This from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.p.201.

Now Eric, remember that Ineffabilis deus claims that this was revelation. Does not revelation end with the last Apostle?
Or as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it:

Public revelation, yes. There are private revelations to saints that confirm this doctrine, but they need not be held as de fide by all the Church.

It is a matter of how the Revelation of God is to be understood.

When the angel Gabriel greeted the Mother of our Lord as “Hail Kecharitoméne” we regard this as a royal title, not a proper name (though it came to be used this way). It makes reference to an event that has occured in the past with continuing action into the present. Therefore we know that Mary was sanctified by God at some point previous to the Greeting of Gabriel.

I am curious, Algo. If God was able to make Eve without original sin, what makes you think He could not, or would not, do this with His Own Mother?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Algo,
The problem here is that you don’t understand Catholic teaching and hence, you come to the wrong conclusion.

Algo,
Clement is writing to the Catholic Church at Corinth. Unlike you, they already understood the Catholic teaching on justification. I am explaining it to you so that you understand the context of Clement’s point and aren’t mislead into thinking that you can get to Heaven based on Faith alone based on an incomplete understanding of what you are reading.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Not according to one of your Church Historians:

Klaus Schatz, S.J. Papal Primacy (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996, p. 34-35).

Blessings to you and your loved ones, Algo! The more time you spend here, the more you’ll see how much I love Augustine, the brother of our LORD!

I would be interested in seeing Schatz’s substantiation for some of the assertions made here. For instance…

Schatz: “In the case of North Africa it is interesting to note the attitude of a self-confident and organizationally intact Church toward Rome.”

In his disputes with the Donatists, Augustine drew attention to the fact that “not one, but two or more Councils were held; always, however, in Africa” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 10:14On Baptism, Against the Donatists). The fact of councils being held only in Africa is problematic because, as Augustine noted elsewhere, the “African Church, if it be compared with the churches in other parts of the world, is very different from them, and is left far behind both in numbers and in influence” (Letter 43). I’m not convinced of this “attitude” of “self-confidence,” especially if we’re talking about Augustine himself who wrote to Pope Celestine, “I beg you to second our efforts, most saintly lord and holy Pope, worthy of veneration with all due affection… I beg you by the Blood of Christ. I beg it by the memory of the Apostle Peter who warned those in charge of Christian peoples not to lord it over their brethren” (Letter 209), and who felt that his only recourse, if the Pope could not be persuaded, was to consider his own early retirement! I love the humility of Augustine!

Schatz: “This teaching was condemned by two North African councils in Carthage and Mileve in 416. But since Pelagius lived in Rome, and Rome was the center of the Pelagian movement, it seemed appropriate to inform Pope Innocent I of the decision.”

Schatz says that it was “appropriate to inform Pope Innocent I of the decision” because “Pelagius lived in Rome.” I wonder where he gets this from as being the reason. The writings of Augustine and the letter from the Council of Carthage in 416 seem to indicate that the reason that Rome was consulted was because of the Councils held in the East, which had acquitted Pelagius. By the time we get to 416, the Pelagian Celestius had been condemned at the Council of Carthage in 411/412, while Pelagius himself, on the other hand, had been exonerated by the councils held in Jerusalem and Diospolis in 415. From the first of these Eastern trials, Orosius tells us that John of Jerusalem had decided “that certain brethren should be sent with a letter to blessed Innocent, Pope of Rome, to the intent that he might decide on all the points which were to follow” (qtd. in the Preface to the Book On the Proceedings of Pelagius). It was provincial councils vs. provincial councils, and so Africa gathered in council once again and sought the authority of Rome in order that Pelagius’ “false doctrine, which now has many supporters scattered in various places,” could “be anathematized by the authority of the Apostolic See” (Letter 175). Even in the very request for the anathema, not the local presence in Rome, but the “supporters scattered in various places” are mentioned as the reason for contacting Rome. The letter from Milevis also mentions the happenings in the East, telling the Pope that Pelagius “is established at Jerusalem and is said to lead many astray,” although “your holy son, our brother and fellow priest, Jerome” is opposing them. To mention the name of Jerome is no small appeal. Augustine once said that, “although, so far as the titles of honour which prevail in the Church are concerned, a bishop’s rank is above that of a presbyter, nevertheless in many things Augustine is in inferior to Jerome” (Letter 82). Jerome was famous among the Popes in his own day, and by 494, Pope Gelasius could say in Council at Rome that Rufinus “was a religious man, and wrote many books of use to the Church, and many commentaries on the Scripture; but, since the most blessed Jerome infamed him on certain points, we take part with him (Jerome) in this and in all cases in which he has pronounced a condemnation” (Prolegommena on the Life and Works of Rufinus). Whoa! You don’t want to get on Jerome’s bad side. Augustine said that “when letters came to us from the East, giving the most open publicity to the case, we were in duty bound not to fail to use our episcopal authority, such as it is, in behalf of the Church.” And Augustine used his episcopal authority by consulting Rome: “Therefore, reports of this controversy were sent to the Apostolic See from the two Councils of Carthage and Milevis” (Letter 186). We see once again that Rome was consulted because of what was happening in the Church at large, and not because Pelagius had a favorable local presence in Rome.

 

[Pete_Holter]

All of this is to say that the Church in Africa was seeking aid from the Pope because it wanted a universal condemnation from the Apostolic See in order to bring the issue to a close. This is shown by the wording of the conciliar letters themselves prior to the Pope’s response, and by Augustine’s subsequent comments made in Sermon 131 where he says that “the cause is finished,” and in Letters 190 and 215 where he tells us that the papal condemnations were issued to “all the bishops of the world.”

Again:

Schatz: “The very councils mentioned above give a clear picture of the way the Africans, including Augustine, regarded Rome’s teaching authority. They sent their records to Rome not to obtain formal confirmation…”

Again, I wonder about this. Carthage, as noted in my previous post, wrote to Rome in order that Pelagianism could “be anathematized by the authority of the Apostolic See” (Letter 175). In response to this, Pope Innocent wrote to Carthage saying that “it has been decreed by a divine, not a human, authority that whenever action is taken in any of the provinces, however distant or remote, it should not be brought to a conclusion before it comes to the knowledge of this See, so that every just decision may be affirmed by our total authority” (Letter 181). To Milevis he said that “I think that as often as an argument on the faith is being blown about, all our brothers and fellow bishops ought to refer it solely to Peter, that is, to the one having the authority of his name and rank, as your Charity has now done, so that it may be for the common benefit of all the Churches” (Letter 182). It sounds like the Pope viewed the conciliar epistles as being exactly what Schatz is shying away from. What does Augustine say in response to these letters from the Pope? He says that Pope Innocent “answered all these communications in a manner which was right and fitting for the pontiff of the Apostolic See” (Letter 186). Wow! Claims to total authority and universal care over the Church? I can’t imagine anyone but a Roman Catholic, after reading Letters 181 and 182, being able to then conclude, as Augustine did, that they were written “in a manner which was right and fitting.” I see no disparity between Augustine’s estimation of Rome and Rome’s estimation of itself.

One final interaction…

Schatz: “This is especially obvious in a letter from Augustine writing for five bishops; we are not, he said, pouring our little trickle back into your ample fountain to increase it, but. . .we wish to be reassured by you that this trickle of ours, however scant, flows from the same fountainhead as your abundant stream, and we desire the consolation of your writings, drawn from our common share of the one grace. Every word of this should be noted: The Roman church is not the source of the African Church, for both, in parallel streams, flow from the river of the same tradition, even though the river is fuller in the Roman church.”

 

[Pete_Holter]

I see why Schatz wants to draw this conclusion, but if we compare with what Augustine writes elsewhere, we will not come to the “parallel” streams theory. Even in these closing sentences from Augustine in Letter 177, we see a lack of support for this notion: in order for the trickle of Africa to not add to the abundant stream of the Apostolic See, the one must be seen as derivative of the other. In other words, the trickle from Africa emanates from the same fountainhead as Rome only as a tributary of the Roman stream. If this is not the case, how could the authority of the Africans trickle back to something it didn’t first come from?

Augustine saw that the “succession of priests” had its “beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter” (, Ch. 4Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus), and that if the “the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself” (Letter 53). Letter 53 directly identifies this succession from Peter, “whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius,” with the Church of Rome; again he mentions “the chair… of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and which Anastasius fills today” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 51:118Against Petilian); and, finally, in his letter to Pope Celestine he congratulates him “since the Lord our God has set you on the chair of Peter, as we have heard, with no dissension among His people” (Letter 209).

The Roman Church finds its origin directly in the apostleship of Peter, and this helps us to understand why Augustine says that in Pope Zosimus’ Tractoria, “the Catholic faith stands out as so ancient and so firmly established, so certain and so clear, that it would be wrong for a Christian to doubt it” (Letter 190). Augustine uses the same language with regard to Innocent’s condemnation of Pelagius, concerning which Augustine asks, “What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See?” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 6Against Two Letters of the Pelagians); and goes on to say that “by the letters of the venerable Innocent … the antiquity of the catholic faith shone forth” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 8Against Two Letters of the Pelagians). The antiquity? This is interesting to me because it seems to be understood by Augustine that the Scriptural interpretations, when given by an ancient Church, are thereby shown to be ancient. For “a high place [of authority] must be given to such [Churches] as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 8:12On Christian Doctrine), and even more so is this true of the Church at Rome “in which the supremacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished” (Letter 43). When speaking of the authority of the episcopacy in general, there is only one “apostolic chair” in the Church (, 35On the Profit of Believing), and its supreme manifestation is found in the chair of Peter at Rome, whose bishop sits on “a loftier height” in “the office of the episcopate” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 2Against Two Letters of the Pelagians). Although any particular Bishop of Rome may be “later in time, yet [is he] higher in place” as the one who presides over “the Western Church” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 4:13Against Julian). On account of this ancient authority of the Apostolic See, the decisions of the Bishop of Rome, “although later in time,” manifest the antiquity of the Christian faith.

The direct Petrine succession, the authority of an apostolic chair (referring to the personal chair of an apostle rather than to the one doctrinal or episcopal chair of authority found in greater or lesser degree in all the bishoprics holding catholic unity throughout the world), and the general antiquity of the Church of Rome all come together to show that the trickle of Africa derives from the abundant stream of Rome and is not in parallel going back to “the fountainhead;” rather, it reaches that fountainhead through communion with Rome and with “all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel” (Letter 43).

“[W]hat a decision was finally pronounced by the blessed [Pope] Melchiades himself; how equitable, how complete, how prudent, and how fitted to make peace!.. O excellent man! O son of Christian peace, father of the Christian people!” (Letter 43).

More fundamental to the issue, could a Jesuit ever really be able to do justice to the thought of Saint Augustine?

Only You can save!

With love in Christ,
Pete