Name one issue the ECF's were unanimous on!

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ANYONE?
Anything?

“Unanimous consent”, as used in Catholic theology, is to be understood within that setting. The terminology of Catholic theology has to be given the meaning or meanings it has within Catholicism, not the meanings it may have outside Catholicism. Otherwise, what Catholic theological terms mean within Catholicism is going to be misunderstood. Which is, BTW, why theology by dictionary is so misleading - if one wants to understand what a religion or ideology means by the words it uses, one goes to sources which are recognised within that religion or ideology : not to a dictionary, nor to the opponents of that religion.​

An example - Calvinism & Catholicism have both given plenty of attention to predestination, under that name. To find out what it means within Calvinism, one does not go to (say) Merriam-Webster, or to Christian sources which are hostile to Calvinism, or to religions with an understanding of predestination that is foreign to what it means within its Calvinist setting; one goes to Calvinist sources, as Calvinists are best placed to explain the meaning of their faith, predestination & all.

And this is how one should go about finding out what is meant by the words which Catholics use. Which is why Catholicism gives a place to certain theological authors in particular - to the Fathers, Doctors, & “approved authors”.

Other sources in Catholicism are of greater weight in saying what it is that we are to believe, & in guarding & guiding & defining & propagating that belief - the groups of authors mentioned, contribute to the health of the Church in a different & complimentary way, by exploring the content & implications & significance of what is believed, done, & intended.

And all this, is the gift of Christ the Lord of His Church, Who is her Eternal & Unfailing Shepherd

That doesn’t answer your question - it’s meant to clarify the setting in which “unanimous consent” (say, of the Fathers) is used.

 

[Janet_S]

ANYONE?
Anything?

I can name at least 7:

–Baptismal regeneration
–The presence of Christ in the Eucharist
–The sacrificial character of the Eucharist
–The authority of the presbyters and bishops
–The Apostolic succession of bishops
–The necessity of good works for final salvation
–Honor being paid to the blessed Virgin and the saints

 

[Janet_S]

So the coined term “UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS” Really has no weight to it?

Because it’s my understanding that this forms, to a large extent, what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition.

I’m not sure you understand what Catholics mean when they talk about sacred Tradition.

Tradition is not the sum of the ECF writings, though it can be found there. Tradition is found in the living Church as well as the historical Church.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are inextricably linked.

The best analogy I have found (of the relation between Scripture and Tradition) is given by Mark Shea in his book By What Authority?

Scripture is the light and Tradition is the lens through which the light is focused.

The Scripture gave light, but a very scattered light on this most crucial of issues (in this case, abortion). The tradition acted like a lens bringing that dancing light into focus. Tradition without Scripture was a darkened lens without a light; but likewise, Scripture without tradition was, on this vital issue, a blurry, unfocused light without a lens

.

You can read this chapter of Mark’s book here:
mark-shea.com/6.html

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I can name at least 7:

–Baptismal regeneration
–The presence of Christ in the Eucharist
–The sacrificial character of the Eucharist
–The authority of the presbyters and bishops
–The Apostolic succession of bishops
–The necessity of good works for final salvation
–Honor being paid to the blessed Virgin and the saints

I am on a slow wifi, promise to address each tomorrow…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Firstly, that text is not written by an ECF. Notice that it is under the category “pseudo-Clementine literature.”

Anyway, the text you pointed out doesn’t show opposition (my emphasis and [comments]):

So, as you see, the text actually counters your argument.

Furthermore, in Ch. 6, Niceta addresses Peter as “my father” and in Ch. 7 Peter addresses Niceta as “my son.” It seems like Peter had no problem with it.

So, you have not shown me one ECF (and let me clarify this time, pseudo-ECF literature doesn’t count) that holds to your interpretation of the verse.

Think about this they were aware of this even then, otherwise aquilla wouldn’t have addressed him.

 

[jemfinch]

I surely wouldn’t base my salvation by a democratic means of consensus and general agreement.

You prefer autocracy?

Jeremy

 

[Janet_S]

I can name at least 7:

–Baptismal regeneration
–The presence of Christ in the Eucharist
–The sacrificial character of the Eucharist
–The authority of the presbyters and bishops
–The Apostolic succession of bishops
–The necessity of good works for final salvation
–Honor being paid to the blessed Virgin and the saints

I got this list from Edwin, our Episcopalian friend who teaches Church history. I happened to be on a thread he was participating in.

If you start with the things on which there is consensus in the early Church–baptismal regeneration, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (however defined), the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, the authority of presbyters and bishops, with the latter in succession from the apostles, the necessity of good works for final salvation, prayer for the dead, honor to be paid to martyrs and to the blessed Virgin (though in the earliest centuries not necessarily including asking for their prayers). . . . you have something that looks very different from most contemporary forms of Protestantism and which most Protestants would identify as “Catholic” if they saw it in action (I know this, because I get accused of being Catholic all the time for defending these things).

You can read his responses here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2393484&postcount=90

and here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2393486&postcount=91

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I got this list from Edwin, our Episcopalian friend who teaches Church history. I happened to be on a thread he was participating in.

As much as I truly appreciate Edwins desire to be unbiased, this is an area where his lens is tinted, I’ve seen his valuable (name removed by moderator)ut on threads on Peterine Primacy and/or universal authority and in an area clearly waning in evidence he still stood behind the Catholic rendition, clearly he looks through that lens, after he’s an anglican.
NO offense Edwin I love and learn a ton from you…and this is my simple POV.

 

[LilyM]

Well, for one thing, none of them had a problem calling priests “Father.”

NONE of 'em believed in Sola Scriptura … no, not even St Paul or the Bereans. I’m sure they checked what they could against the Scripture available to them at the time. But a lot of what Paul was teaching, about Christ, the Ressurection, the Trinity, and about the Eucharist, among other things, wasn’t written down anywhere, so they couldn’t possibly have crosschecked all of it, or even half.

And none of 'em, I’d bet my last penny, called themselves an ‘Evangelical Fundamentalist’ Christian. There was ONE Christian faith - the same that Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St John the Evangelist himself - called ‘Catholic’. The same that WE call ‘Catholic’. Case closed.

 

[PC_Master]

I’m not sure the question has a logical point to it. If there is a solid consensus on a belief, that’s proof enough that most Christians held that belief since Apostolic times onward and therefore it is part of the Apostolic Faith. An example would be the hypostatic union.

The point is that the Roman Catholic Church has decreed (at Trent and Vatican I) that no one, even the church herself, should hold a position that is not supported by “the unanimous consent of the fathers”. Thus, the question becomes – who are considered the “fathers” (which in itself is an interesting question), and was there anything they were unanimous on? If not, then the statement is simply ridiculous.

You know, if something’s essential to the Christian faith, you would think that at least a decent amount of Christians would hold that belief at every point in time after the Resurrection (since Christ promised that they would be led by the Holy Spirit.)

I absolutely agree. This is all the more reason why claims that early fathers didn’t support Roman Catholicism should be taken seriously.

 

[Janet_S]

I’m curious, do you think the earliest commentary on that verse is during/after the Reformation?

Find me one ECF who had a problem with it.

Here is Jerome’s commentary on Matthew 23:9 from this site:

catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Matthew23.php

JEROME; It is a difficulty that the Apostle against this command calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles; and that in monasteries in their common conversation, they call one another, Father. It is to be cleared thus. It is one thing to be father or master by nature, another by sufferance. Thus when we call any man our father, we do it to show respect to his age, not as regarding him as the author of our being. We also call men ‘Master,’ from resemblance to a real master; and, not to use tedious repetition, as the One God and One Son, who are by nature, do not preclude us from calling others gods and sons by adoption, so the One Father and One Master, do not preclude us from speaking of other fathers and masters by an abuse of the terms.

 

[Contarini]

Mathetes
See how he speaks of Christ righteousness covering our sins…

“As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” (The Epistle to Diognetus, 9)

This is completely irrelevant to baptismal regeneration–in fact it says nothing about how salvation is received by us. You are reading your own theology into it. The fact that this is the best you can do shows that you have no case. Baptismal regeneration really is something the early Christians were unanimous on. As Janet said, I made that claim on another thread, and I stand by it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As much as I truly appreciate Edwins desire to be unbiased, this is an area where his lens is tinted, I’ve seen his valuable (name removed by moderator)ut on threads on Peterine Primacy and/or universal authority and in an area clearly waning in evidence he still stood behind the Catholic rendition, clearly he looks through that lens, after he’s an anglican.

I’m not sure what you mean by “still” and “after.” It’s true that I was once a candidate for admission to the Catholic Church–this was actually after I was confirmed as an Episcopalian.

Anyway, the relevant point is that you need to refute my list, not just attack my alleged bias.

Edwin

 

[francesco920]

Think about this they were aware of this even then, otherwise aquilla wouldn’t have addressed him.

You ignored everything I said.

The text is a fake, not written by an ECF therefore it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. This is what I had asked you:

Find me one ECF who had a problem with it.

From what I have read, the text you cited was composed by an Arian heretic. This text doesn’t qualify as being from an ECF.

 

[Scottgun]

The funny thing is, we always see people pointing to a disagreeable father on a certain doctrine as disproof of that doctrine. BUT, the fact that NONE of the fathers were able to correctly identify all the books of Scripture until centuries after goes a long way toward making mince-meat of Sola Scriptura.

Scott

 

[Randy_Carson]

ANYONE?
Anything?

I would like to rephrase the question, Dean, and this is meant for you personally.

Can you name one thing that the Fathers were NOT in either unanimous or general agreement on?

In other words, after carefully studying the writings of the Early Church Fathers, can you name a single doctrine which the Fathers unanimously or generally embraced but which the Catholic Church denies today?

Or conversely, is there a single doctrine which the Fathers unanimously or generally denied but which the Catholic Church embraces today?

What does this tell you about the catholicity of the Fathers?

 

[Janet_S]

I absolutely agree. This is all the more reason why claims that early fathers didn’t support Roman Catholicism should be taken seriously.

You can take these claims seriously, but I’ve never heard of a single case of anyone studying Church history through the writings of the Fathers and becoming convinced that the early Christians were fundamentalist Protestants, not Catholics.

On the other hand, studying the Church Fathers has brought hundreds or thousands of people to the Catholic Church.

That’s just a fact.

Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

–Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

 

[VociMike]

ANYONE?
Anything?

I have to ask, can you name (and demonstrate) one issue the apostles were unanimous on?

I think I’ll be surprised if you can demonstrate a single one.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Name one issue the ECF’s were unanimous on!

Uh …

Well, they all seemed to think this Jesus-guy was pretty darn important. Go figure.

Baptismal regeneration is attested to by the Scriptures. If you don’t believe me, do what I did and drop all your presuppositions about what the Scriptures say and just read (I was/am being brought up Baptist, so I had to deal with this). The Fathers seemed also of this opinion as a whole, at the very, very least. Another good point is the hypostatic union, his messiahship, and as far as reliable witnesses go you have the Real Presence of the Eucharist. I mean, heck, you have the Synoptic Gospel writers, John, Paul, AND John’s disciple Ignatius all saying, “YES, Jesus said this is his Body and Blood.” The Fathers added to this testimony, but you’d think this would be strong enough to stand by itself …

 

[Mannyfit75]

The ECF believed that God became Man. THat is what they agreed on