Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible

[mikeledes]

Because you keep telling me I need Tradition to guide my theology, but then you don’t even abide by it. I never claim Oral Tradition had the final say so on my theology, that is the role of Scripture. I don’t call myself sola Scriptura for nothing. And before some wise Catholic jumps in the conversation, that doesn’t mean I can use anything else. It simply means onlhy Scripture is infallible and highest authority.

And yet infant baptism is based more on Tradition than on the Bible. The “good and necessary consequence” argument does not hold water when other sincere and learned Protestants test it against Scripture. At least I can claim that it is reafirmed by apostolic tradition.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Kaycee, here is a quote from Wikipedia.com on Pope Zosimus and the Pelagians.

Not long after the election of Zosimus the proponent of Pelagianism, Caelestius, who had been condemned by the preceding pope, Innocent I, came to Rome to justify himself before the new pope, having been expelled from Constantinople. In the summer of 417 Zosimus held a meeting of the Roman clergy in the Basilica of St. Clement before which Coelestius appeared. The propositions drawn up by the deacon Paulinus of Milan, on account of which Coelestius had been condemned at Carthage in 411, were laid before him. Coelestius refused to condemn these propositions, at the same time declaring in general that he accepted the doctrine expounded in the letters of Pope Innocent and making a confession of faith which was approved. The pope was won over by the shrewdly calculated conduct of Coelestius, and said that it was not certain whether the heretic had really maintained the false doctrine rejected by Innocent, and that therefore he considered the action of the African bishops against Coelestius too hasty. He wrote at once in this sense to the bishops of the African province, and called upon those who had anything to bring against Coelestius to appear at Rome within two months. Soon after this Zosimus received from Pelagius also an artfully expressed confession of faith, together with a new treatise by the heretic on free will. The pope held a new synod of the Roman clergy, before which both these writings were read. The skilfully chosen expressions of Pelagius concealed the heretical contents; the assembly held the statements to be orthodox, and Zosimus again wrote to the African bishops defending Pelagius and reproving his accusers, among whom were the Gallic bishops Hero and Lazarus. Archbishop Aurelius of Carthage quickly called a synod, which sent a letter to Zosimus in which it was proved that the pope had been deceived by the heretics. In his answer Zosimus declared that he had settled nothing definitely, and wished to settle nothing without consulting the African bishops. After the new synodal letter of the African council of 1 May 418 to the pope, and after the steps taken by the Emperor Honorius against the Pelagians, Zosimus recognized the true character of the heretics. He now issued his Tractoria, in which Pelagianism and its authors were finally condemned.

Now can you please provide documentation, particularly primary sources, that demonstrate that Zosimus was a Pelagian, taught Pelagianism, and defined Pelagianism as an article of faith?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[ncgolf]

Well, I’m still earlier than Catholicism with some of her Marian dogmas and Papal Infallibility.

This must be an assumption that revelation stopped after the Canon was compiled. While the Canon was approved that really did nothing except define the Canon. That event did nothing to limit what dogma could be possibly contained and defnined in the future though not yet revealed at the time the Canon was established. Your example of Marian doctrine is prime example of this.

Infallability, in the context Catholics use, only is used to intrepret Scripture for the faithful using existing Scripture so they may be assured that it is indeed a revelation from God. Your disagreement on the teaching authority of the Magesterium makes our postion totally untenable for you though.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not approved until the 1800’s.

Somehow I get the idea that you think the total of revelation was given at the time of creation of the Canon. For Catholics, it did not as evidenced by dogmas stated 1500 years after the Canon was compiled.

 

[rtconstant]

No one probably noticed because that is not what is taking place. I’ve only shown there is no reason to believe in an infallible church (not to even mentioned your concept of an infallible magisteruim), but there is someone infallible that we need to believe in and that is God. God is infallible so His word is infallible. The only infallible word of God we have in our position is in the Holy, Inerrant, and Infallible (contrary to some Catholics) Scriptures. And the Scriptures point us to the God of the Scriptures who is revealed in His glorious Son.

Except that as you’ve shown we have no reason to believe that Sacred Scripture is in fact sacred. You are trying to prove that it is not necessary for an infallible institution to put together an infallible text. This ultimately only puts both the institution and the text into question. Then you attempt to gloss over the obvious problem there by saying that this is what faith is about. Then you go further and more or less say that if we really can’t be sure about the magisterium or the Bible then we should just assume the Bible is actually infallible.

It just does not work that way. First of all it is necessary to know that the source of something is reliable. Now you can say well obviously it is since God wrote it. The problem with that is that it was The Church that established that the Bible was indeed of divine authorship. If the magisterium can be in error then even the starting concept is in question.

Now you can say well we have to have faith that the Bible is without error. Well, yeah that’s the easy answer but why would we? In fact why would we even think the Bible is important at all? The only reason that we even have a New Testament is because the authors of those gospels and letters were considered to be men that you listened to. This is the basis of the magisterium.

In ancient days like today believers could come to all kinds of conclusions on their own. However, when the Apostles and their followers spoke discussion ended. The reason for this was simple. These men had witnessed the life of Christ first hand. So what was theory for everyone else was experience for them. So if you needed to know what Christ actually taught these men were the best and final authority. When they passed then it by natural course fell on those that had learned directly from them.

When believers needed clarification on belief their best bet especially for the majority who couldn’t even read really only could be taught or preached to and they needed to know that those that were teaching them were telling them the right thing. Apostolic Succession was how they could have that confidence.

When, Bible was being codexed they needed to have an authority that could speak to what was and was not canonical. Again the magisterium under the authority of Apostolic Succession fulfilled that role.

Now in a normal human institution this sort of “chain of custody” can degrade as time goes on. Yet it is the assumption of the Catholic that just as the Lord protected the teachings of His Church during those days before and during the creation of the Bible that he would continue to work through this medium to instruct his flock. We simply gained the Bible as an additional source of wisdom (and a great source it is!). This is an infinitely reasonable assumption.

Now, back to the Bible in order for the early Church to have been able to reliable know that the Bible presented to them was in fact the infallible sacred scripture of God they needed to know that the men who endorsed it were reliable to make that decision. Otherwise it could be debated ad nauseum.

I hope not, and I don’t see how you got that. It says more about your belief than mines. Without Catholicism’s grandiose claims you can envision no Christianity, however for me without Christ there is no Christianity.

No, again I was simply addressing the natural end of your argument. Nevertheless, Catholicism’s claim isn’t grandiose in the least. It is both practical and reasonable.

 

[Bishopite]

SolaScriptura;1874921]LOL … you should read in another thread where another Roman Catholic is arguing something different. He denies the Scripture are infallible, but instead he says they are only inerrant. And of course you have other Roman Catholics who deny they are inerrant in every aspect. So you are the one guilty of huge blunder and who knows what RC choir I’m preaching to.

This other Catholic most likely doesn’t know that the Church teaches the Scriptures are infallible, however infallibility doesn’t mean cintax, text number nor name errors apply since they are from copying errors. And since one author depicted something slightly different from another, yet both describe the same essential event also doesn’t make it fallible nor inherant. I think perhaps you know this but like to attempt to confuse those who don’t know. The reformed theologian Norman Geisler whom I’m sure you’ve heard of, says this too in his book “Systematic Theology.” I’ve read the book (it’s very easy reading) John Murray is a wee bit more difficult. And I can give you the quote(s) if you so desire

Yes, Scripture speaks of believers being raptured(i.e caught up). The real question is what does one think happens after that point.

Obviously you are reformed in your theology with a bit of dispensationalism mixed within. Intersting what solaScriptura (pardon the pun) can mix together. Most reformed Protestant are post millenial without a rapture which John Calvin would knew nothing of, sounds like a theological novum to me!

Well, just ask SolaScriptura and I will solve them for you, because I’ve been given the gift of infallibility also Oh, I bet you can’t get any infallible answers from Rome to all those questions. I’m a much better infallible interpreter.

Ok Mr. infallible, can you tell me what 1 Cor 1:30 says?
I’ll help you…“Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.”
And then perhaps you could infallibly interpret 1 Tim 3:15?
You aren’t by chance calling yourself B16 are you? Because we all know he is actually the one with the charism of infallibilty

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hey Sola, don’t take my Calvinism comment personal. It’s not your fault. So you diagree with Luther, Calvin, the Church Fathers, and even your own Church on certain issues. Why?

Because we are all fallible humans that realize perfection in this life or 100% agreement will not happen. Even the Scriptures themselves shows that there were differences of opinions in the church on certain issues when the Apostles were alive. Do you agree 100% with Augustine, Aquinas, or your church on every issue?

Secondly, if someone were to say that the Epistle of Saint Jude is not inspired because it quotes apocryphal sources and was even disputed in the early Church, how eould you convince me otherwise?

If someone were to say to you that the Epistle of Saint Jude is not inspired because it quotes apocryphal sources and was disputed in the early Church and Rome cannot be infallible because she contradicts Scripture how would you convince me otherwise? You first, because I’ve answered a lot of your questions already.

 

[SolaScriptura]

And yet infant baptism is based more on Tradition than on the Bible. The “good and necessary consequence” argument does not hold water when other sincere and learned Protestants test it against Scripture. At least I can claim that it is reafirmed by apostolic tradition.

God bless,
Michael

Yeah, but can you do the same for the Immaculate Conception? Not only can’t you do it from Tradition, but you can’t even make a decent argument from Scripture either.

 

[Lampo]

Yeah, but can you do the same for the Immaculate Conception? Not only can’t you do it from Tradition, but you can’t even make a decent argument from Scripture either.

You’ve got to be kidding! Will this suffice?

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

 

[Lampo]

ECF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

 

[JesusforMadrid]

ECF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

Hey, nice cut and paste from some Roman Catholic apologetics website.

I think it is absolutely shocking how really weak the argument from tradition really is, as the above shows. No citations from the 1st and 2nd centuries, from the literally thousands of pages of Christian writings that we have today from the likes of Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Barnabas, Tertullian and others. Nothing in the Didache, the first Christian document written about this time. Shocking that those who would be closest to Mary would not note something of seemingly great importance. They could have simply added, “Oh, and by the way, Mary was born sinless”. But they did not. Nothing.

The RC church wants us to believe that the Christian writers took 300 years before it finally dawn upon them that the Immaculate Conception was of great significance. This strains credibility. And there was no conciliar reference to it until the 12th century!

Add to the above lack of Early Church support with the complete rejection of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception by some of the greatest scholastic theologians of the Roman Catholic church: Peter Lombard, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas.

What we have for support from tradition is selective, arbitrary and capricious use of citations from post Constantine Christian authors. Thanks for playing but this doesn’t meet the challenge.

 

[runandsew]

The RC church wants us to believe that the Christian writers took 300 years before it finally dawn upon them that the Immaculate Conception was of great significance. This strains credibility. And there was no conciliar reference to it until the 12th century!

Please excuse my ignorance of the early church fathers, but was there a heresie in the first two centuries of the Church concerning Mary not being born sinless, that the early church fathers would have felt it necessary to write something to refute this heresie?

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey, nice cut and paste from some Roman Catholic apologetics website.

I think it is absolutely shocking how really weak the argument from tradition really is, as the above shows. No citations from the 1st and 2nd centuries, from the literally thousands of pages of Christian writings that we have today from the likes of Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Barnabas, Tertulian and others. Nothing in the Didache, the first Christian document written about this time. Shocking that those who would be closest to Mary would not note something of seemingly great importance. They could have simply added, “Oh, and by the way, Mary was born sinless”. But they did not. Nothing.

The RC church wants us to believe that the Christian writers took 300 years before it finally dawn upon them that the Immaculate Conception was of great significance. This strains credibility. And there was no conciliar reference to it until the 12th century!

Add to the above lack of Early Church support with the complete rejection of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception by some of the greatest scholastic theologians of the Roman Catholic church: Peter Lombard, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas.

What we have for support from tradition is selective, arbitrary and capricious use of citations from post Constantine Christian authors. Thanks for playing but this doesn’t meet the challenge.Bunk… you cannot miss the Eucharistic Real Presence in the letter of Ignatius to the church at Smyrna, (Chapter 7) and his plain use of the name Catholic Church in the same letter (in Chapter 8).

There is tons more and your reference to the Immaculate Conception is voided by the fact that it is based upon New Testament scripture as well as long tradition of the early church.

As for the actual topic of this thread…I believe that there are quite a few ECF sources that I’ve seen that specify the very same list of books that we consider canon to day, and they are indeed pre-Constantine.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Please excuse my ignorance of the early church fathers, but was there a heresie in the first two centuries of the Church concerning Mary not being born sinless, that the early church fathers would have felt it necessary to write something to refute this heresie?

I see where you are going with this but it is a bad argument, for the following reasons:

1. Argument from silence is not argument from tradition. The challenge of Sola is an argument from tradition. To say, hey, it wasn’t contested by a heresy in the first two centuries so it wasn’t mentioned isn’t an argument from tradition.
2. Their are 68 pre Constantine Church fathers, according to New Advent, a RC website. Their thousands and thousands of pages of documents discuss the sublime and the banal. That there would be no mention of the immaculate conception until the 4th century when they mention so very much else suggests again that the argument from tradition is extremely weak.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Bunk… you cannot miss the Eucharistic Real Presence in the letter of Ignatius to the church at Smyrna, (Chapter 7) and his plain use of the name Catholic Church in the same letter (in Chapter 8).

Um, yes. The question was the immaculate conception. I agree on the Real Presence, as do many non-RC Christians.

There is tons more and your reference to the Immaculate Conception is voided by the fact that it is based upon New Testament scripture as well as long tradition of the early church.

As for the actual topic of this thread…I believe that there are quite a few ECF sources that I’ve seen that specify the very same list of books that we consider canon to day, and they are indeed pre-Constantine

Great. Than it must be easy to show us where in the ECFs there is support for the Immaculate Conception. I don´t see it and hence, my conclusion stands: the argument from tradition is based on an arbitrary and capricious application of post Constantine Christian writings which ignores those writings to the contrary.

 

[alexaustralia]

Being that we are now posting ECF and the like I would like to share this that I posted before under other threads

St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians Address (c. 98 AD)

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters of dispute among you”

So what we have here is the Church of Rome intervening in the affairs of the Church of Corinth because of disputes happening there…hence no autonomy rather Rome has the authority to put order in other areas.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2 (c. 180 AD)

“…by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic Tradition”

Well I don’t know about you but I am certainly having a déjà vu episode here. Succession, bishops, Rome as the head of all churches in the “WHOLE WORLD”, Apostolic Tradition…WOW

These quotes are from St. Ignatius of Antioch. They sure give a feel of a hierarchal and unified Church being present at his time.

“ For, all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop. And those, too, will belong to God who have returned, repentant, to the unity of the Church so as to live in accordance with Jesus Christ. Make no mistake, brethren. No one who follows another into schism inherits the kingdom of God. No one who follows heretical doctrine is on the side of the passion.”
Letter to the Philadelphians Chap3

“[Shun schisms, as the source of troubles.] Let all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father, and the priests, as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Apart from the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptise or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid."

Letter to the Smyrneans, Chap 8

 

[Church_Militant]

Um, yes. The question was the immaculate conception. I agree on the Real Presence, as do many non-RC Christians.

Great. Than it must be easy to show us where in the ECFs there is support for the Immaculate Conception. I don´t see it and hence, my conclusion stands: the argument from tradition is based on an arbitrary and capricious application of post Constantine Christian writings which ignores those writings to the contrary.

Show me ECF writings that deny the Immaculate Conception then.

Make sure that they also predate Constantine too.
I don’t think you can do it.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Show me ECF writings that deny the Immaculate Conception then.

Make sure that they also predate Constantine too.
I don’t think you can do it.

Again, silence is not an argument from tradition. The burden of proof is on you, not me to show the contrary.

The fact is, we have no evidence for this belief until the 4th century, so arguments against it before that don’t exist. I have already cited those after the 4th century who argued against it, including Aquinas.

 

[thistle]

Um, yes. The question was the immaculate conception. I agree on the Real Presence, as do many non-RC Christians.

Great. Than it must be easy to show us where in the ECFs there is support for the Immaculate Conception. I don´t see it and hence, my conclusion stands: the argument from tradition is based on an arbitrary and capricious application of post Constantine Christian writings which ignores those writings to the contrary.

I see from your profile you are Protestant. Even Luther and the other founding fathers of Protestantism believed in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Unitas]

Hey, nice cut and paste from some Roman Catholic apologetics website.

That’s a pretty charged accusation, he could just as well looked up the topic amongst the patristic writings and pasted parts of them, you never know.

I think it is absolutely shocking how really weak the argument from tradition really is, as the above shows.

You should see the argument for sola scriptura, it’s a doozy.

No citations from the 1st and 2nd centuries, from the literally thousands of pages of Christian writings that we have today from the likes of Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Barnabas, Tertullian and others. Nothing in the Didache, the first Christian document written about this time.

If there was, you probably still wouldn’t accept it since it’s not explicitly spelled out in the bible. You refuse the proof you have been shown, so there’s no reason to think you’d accept those you’d mentioned.

Shocking that those who would be closest to Mary would not note something of seemingly great importance. They could have simply added, “Oh, and by the way, Mary was born sinless”. But they did not. Nothing.

Mary doesn’t seem the type of person to harp on her sinlessness, and take attention away from her son.

The RC church wants us to believe that the Christian writers took 300 years before it finally dawn upon them that the Immaculate Conception was of great significance. This strains credibility. And there was no conciliar reference to it until the 12th century!

There is no clear reference to sola scriptura or sola fide until the 16th century. You were saying?

The protestants want us to believe we’ve had the wrong idea about God for 1500 years and that the Church has no right to interpret the bible even though the Church gave it to them! That strains credibility.

Add to the above lack of Early Church support with the complete rejection of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception by some of the greatest scholastic theologians of the Roman Catholic church: Peter Lombard, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas.

If we showed that the ECF’s rejected sola scriptura and sola fide, would you reject that too? I didn’t think so. To say our beliefs are incorrect because they have little base in the patristic writings, while at the same time holding other beliefs which have zero basis in the patristic writings is rather hypocritical.

What we have for support from tradition is selective, arbitrary and capricious use of citations from post Constantine Christian authors. Thanks for playing but this doesn’t meet the challenge.

Protestant support comes from a single man who held himself a Doctor above all of the papal doctors, and seeked to have his followers become lord and master over the papists. You base your views on far more spurious grounds; attacking the credibility of sources which support our views, and at the same time possessing zero such sources that supports protestant views.

Your version of truth has zero patristic basis, but you accept it.

Our views are supported patristically, which is far more evidence than anything from prostestantism, yet you reject it.

Amazing.

 

[Unitas]

Again, silence is not an argument from tradition. The burden of proof is on you, not me to show the contrary

Actually it is you who is on a Catholic forum, and the immaculate conception is the regular accepted belief in these parts. So yes, the burden of proof is on you.