I’d rather be a Buddhist, but that’s a good point.I voted Hindu. I’m too skeptical to become an Atheist.The really scary thing is an irrational reality, which is closer to Eastern religion. So, if Catholicism is not true, then its going to have to be an irrational reality. shudder
Atheism is just so clean and neat. No way. Protestantism is made up.
Ditto. I thought it was an odd statement, no offense to the original poster,
but either something has been true throughout Church history or it has not; either you hold everyone in the past to the later standards based on later declarations or you do not (and this you should not do neither can you apply and then disapply a standard in the same statement). So reflexively speaking, what came first the chicken or the egg in a pigeon hole? 
Again, as in my previous comment, this is a little strange to me. Is it really an article of faith? Yes I know what Vatican I says, I have read it several times, but it is hard for me to fathom using the actions of the Early Fathers to prove Papal prerogatives while at the same time excusing them from modern definitions. Either things are what they are or they are not.
So you believe that papal infallibility was not part of that faith at that time. And in 1870 it became a part of the faith. So you believe that Christianity evolves. Protestantism can do no better.
St. Cyprian could not have been expected to define Papal Infallibility as we understand it. The fact that he disagreed with the Pope on some things is neither here nor there; everyone does, in one way or another.Again, as in my previous comment, this is a little strange to me. Is it really an article of faith? Yes I know what Vatican I says, I have read it several times, but it is hard for me to fathom using the actions of the Early Fathers to prove Papal prerogatives while at the same time excusing them from modern definitions. Either things are what they are or they are not.
Yes, truth is always true. But truth is not always fully and clearly known or revealed. We mere humans could not handle it if it was.Again, as in my previous comment, this is a little strange to me. Is it really an article of faith? Yes I know what Vatican I says, I have read it several times, but it is hard for me to fathom using the actions of the Early Fathers to prove Papal prerogatives while at the same time excusing them from modern definitions. Either things are what they are or they are not.
No, Christianity does not “evolve.” It discovers things. It remembers things that it had forgotten. It develops, over time, just like a child developing into an adult.
You still not getting it. He wasn’t trying to convince the pope as if the pope were the supreme arbitrator of the church. He condemned Stephen’s view as an error. He didn’t believe it was the pope’s decision that “counted” but rather the orthodox faith that counted. Why do you insist on recreating history to fit your religious views?St. Cyprian could not have been expected to define Papal Infallibility as we understand it. The fact that he disagreed with the Pope on some things is neither here nor there; everyone does, in one way or another.
He knew that the Pope was the go-to guy, though, and the one whose decision counted with regard to the Church - that’s why he was so insistent on trying to convince him of his own point of view. And apparently he wrote something that is used today to defend the idea of Papal Infallibility.
Exactly, you believe it changes over time. Development is synonomous with evolution (ie change over time). In other words, Rome changed the christian faith over a certain period of time.
The actual deposit of the faith doesn’t change. What we know of it changes.
You’re analogy is right on. Rome is constantly adding new doctrines to the faith that the Apostles “once and for all handed to the saints” Jude 1:3.
Examples?
Are you saying that you think mathematicians invent new laws of mathematics out of their own heads? (I should sic my brother on you - he does theoretical physics.
)The divinity of Christ, they hypostatic union, the Theotokos, the Trinity, the Nicene Creed - I mean forget arguing about the wording; it didn’t even exist yet during Apostolic times.
Yes I would say that many things required later articulation. This was and is very important, however, I do not think that the Fathers of the Early Church saw Rome as we do today. It had honor and primacy as the resting place of Sts. Peter and Paul and as the capital of the Roman Empire, but I do not think that the modern understanding of Papal primacy is something that is really reflected in the actions of the Early Fathers of the Church. For Example: When Augustine wanted to correct the error of the Donatists, he did not send these men to Rome but to the Apostolic Sees of the East who would be impartial in the matter in a way Rome could not because the heresy was raging Rome too. Though he considered Rome to have primacy of honor, he did not depend on her blindly.
No, I’m saying that Rome invents new doctrines that were previously not believed by the early christians and says “hey look here is a dogma that the Apostles forgot (chose not to?) to teach the Fathers”. None of the Fathers believed in papal infallibility and indulgences for exampleAre you saying that you think mathematicians invent new laws of mathematics out of their own heads? (I should sic my brother on you - he does theoretical physics.
So you believe the Trinity is on par with papal infallibility? Nobody in the Nicean Council “developed” anything about belief in the Trinity(nor Christ’s divinity, hypostatic union,etc). Instead, the council Fathers were bearing witness to what the Apostles taught them in tradition. The difference is that christians ALWAYS believed in said doctrines according to the writings of the pre-Nicean Fathers themselves. But NONE of the Fathers believed in papal infallibility. That came much later.
There are readings of St. Cyprian that would disagree with such a use. In fact many of the Fathers did not see the Bishop of Rome as a sole “go-to guy,” nor did the consider his decision alone the finalizer, rather they sought consensus of the whole Episcopate. Decisions of any Bishop including Rome’s could be appealed to a plenary of ecumenical council (Augustine says as much in reference to the Donatists who as it turns out we condemned by a council at Rome, but were due an appeal to the rest of the church if they wished. I will try to locate the Letter which applies, apparently the numbering system is not standard).St. Cyprian could not have been expected to define Papal Infallibility as we understand it. The fact that he disagreed with the Pope on some things is neither here nor there; everyone does, in one way or another.
He knew that the Pope was the go-to guy, though, and the one whose decision counted with regard to the Church - that’s why he was so insistent on trying to convince him of his own point of view. And apparently he wrote something that is used today to defend the idea of Papal Infallibility.
Sure they did; they just didn’t use the same words, and the concept was not yet fully articulated. The Fathers were heading out into the desert, fasting, praying, and almsgiving like their souls depended upon it
- this is exactly where our practice of Indulgences comes from. Obviously, people don’t do the same activities - most people today don’t have the ability to take a 20-year holiday from their careers, but the principle is exactly the same as it was then.Do you think the Apostles could have defined the Trinity in the same terms that we do, today?
The doctrine of the indulgences refers to the popes power to apply the merits of the saints to people in purgatory to satisfy for their sins. Provide one quote to support our assertion that the Fathers believed that.Sure they did; they just didn’t use the same words, and the concept was not yet fully articulated. The Fathers were heading out into the desert, fasting, praying, and almsgiving like their souls depended upon it
I am saying that to compare the Trinity to papal infallibility is wrong because chrsitians always believed in the Trinity but nobody believed in papal infallibility until the Middle ages at the earliest and it is dishonest to retroactively apply that belief to the Fathers such as Cyprian.
The Church Fathers created a unity with a leader St. Peter.
There is a difference. The oral Sacred Tradition had already revealed the teachings of the Theotokos, hypostatic union, Trinity etc. The councils reaffirmed this Sacred Tradition and denounced the heretics.
I don’t find multudes of writtings from the first two centuries of Christianity supporting the use of Icons. should we throw those out?
