Name one issue the ECF's were unanimous on!

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
myfavoritmartin said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Church Fathers comprise one part of Sacred Tradition. The other part is the Magisterium.
 
The big danger of this thread is that it suffers from Protestant bias. Let me explain.

Protestants, adhering to Sola Scriptura by nature, tend to think in these terms:

Canonical Writings = Scripture
Writings of Early Christians = Tradition

Sadly for them, that is not the case. Tradition is clearly oral, and the NT supports this (2 Thess. 2:15). The writings of the Early church Father’s merely give us a glimpse or snapshot of their beliefs. Those writings of the early Christians aren’t the basis for the Church’s belief in tradition whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church would be doing the same thing it is now if no Christian EVER wrote anything after the last book of the NT was written (most likely Revelation).
 
Janet_S said:
I can name at least 7:

–The presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Click to expand...
–The presence of Christ in the Eucharist

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iv.xiv.html

From the bottom of this page…Origen comments about Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn’t profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ.

"Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.
 
Contarini said:
I made that claim on another thread, and I stand by it.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Hi Edwin,

A good test, please be patient and I’ll show what i’ve ascertained.

I’d never have started this thread if the term “consensus of the fathers” was the norm, but “unanimous”?..My point here is that the ANF are clearly not as diehard RCC as the RCC claim.
 
Janet_S said:
I can name at least 7:

–The necessity of good works for final salvation
Click to expand...
FROM BISHOP CLEMENT OF ROME…

“And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Maker and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his works. By his supreme power he founded the heavens, and by his incomprehensible understanding he ordered them. The earth he separated from the water that surrounded it, and fixed it on the firm foundation of his own will. The animals which inhabit therein he commanded to be by his ordinance. Having made beforehand the sea and the animals that are therein, he shut them in by his own power. Man, the most excellent of all animals, infinite in faculty, he moulded with his holy and faultless hands, in the impress of his likeness. For thus saith God: Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. And God made man. Male and female made he them. When, therefore, he had finished all things, he praised and blessed them, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply. Let us see, therefore, how all the just have been adorned with good works. Yea, the Lord himself rejoiced when he had adorned himself with his works. Having, therefore, this example, let us come in without shrinking to his will; let us work with all our strength the work of righteousness.” (32-33)

Whats underlined in red should also be pertainable to the necessity of baptism, and all the other sacramental "necessities"

“first Clement” earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
 
Randy_Carson said:
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?
Click to expand...
Seriously Randy this sounds like a different thread, and if you wait until this one runs it’s course I’d love to take it on…
 
myfavoritmartin said:
FROM BISHOP CLEMENT OF ROME…

“And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Maker and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his works. By his supreme power he founded the heavens, and by his incomprehensible understanding he ordered them. The earth he separated from the water that surrounded it, and fixed it on the firm foundation of his own will. The animals which inhabit therein he commanded to be by his ordinance. Having made beforehand the sea and the animals that are therein, he shut them in by his own power. Man, the most excellent of all animals, infinite in faculty, he moulded with his holy and faultless hands, in the impress of his likeness. For thus saith God: Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. And God made man. Male and female made he them. When, therefore, he had finished all things, he praised and blessed them, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply. Let us see, therefore, how all the just have been adorned with good works. Yea, the Lord himself rejoiced when he had adorned himself with his works. Having, therefore, this example, let us come in without shrinking to his will; let us work with all our strength the work of righteousness.” (32-33)

Whats underlined in red should also be pertainable to the necessity of baptism, and all the other sacramental "necessities"

“first Clement” earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
Click to expand...
Ouch that stings a little bit eh???
 
From Dave Armstrong’s website:

Here is a chapter which won’t be included in my upcoming book, The One-Minute Apologist (probably because it has too many lists: my editor has said that is less desirable than a more “conversational” style). I still think it is a handy little reference guide for this topic, which comes up often. Certainly I can at least share it here rather than waste all the work I did on it! 🙂

**Protestantism is closer than Catholicism to the beliefs of the Church fathers **

Many Catholic doctrines were only introduced centuries later and were corruptions

**Initial reply **

In fact, the exact opposite is true: the fathers as a whole were much more “Catholic” in their beliefs than they were some kind of primitive “Protestants”, and this is amply confirmed by Protestant Church historians themselves.

**Extensive reply **

Ten major “distinctively Catholic” doctrines will be supported by documentation (that early Church fathers largely agreed) from the Protestant historians listed below:

Bible, Church, and Tradition, not Bible Alone (sola Scriptura) as the rule of faith (Oberman, 366-367; Pelikan, 115-119, 303-304; Schaff, II: 169-72, 525-28).

Organic connection of justification and sanctification, not Faith Alone (sola fide) (Geisler, 85, 89, 91-93, 99, 222, 502; McGrath, 108-109, 115; Schaff, II: 588-589).

Mary was a perpetual virgin, the Second Eve, and Mother of God (Theotokos) (Cross, 882-83; Kelly, 491-99; Schaff, III: 409-425, 716-22)

The papacy had strong, binding authority (Kelly, 417-21; Pelikan, 352-354; Schaff, II: 155-162, III: 299-319).

Real presence (not mere symbolism) in the Eucharist (Cross, 475-76; Kelly, 447; Pelikan, 166-67, 236-37; Schaff, III: 492, 500).

The sacrifice of the mass (Cross, 476, 1221; Pelikan, 146-47, 170; Schaff, III: 500).

Episcopacy, or the rule of bishops (Cross, 176; Pelikan, 159-160; Schaff, II: 133-39).

Purgatory and prayers for the dead (Cross, 1144-45; Schaff, II: 603-606).

Baptismal regeneration (forgiveness of sins) (Kelly, 207-211; Pelikan, 290-92; Schaff, II: 253-54).

The veneration and intercession of the saints (Cross, 1227-28; Kelly, 490-91; Schaff, III: 428-42)

[SOURCES]

F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983.

Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 89, 91-93, 99, 222

J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978 edition.

Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993.

Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967 edition.

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol. I: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; from the 5th revised edition of 1910.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974; from the 5th revised edition of 1910.

**Objection **

But individual church fathers can certainly be mistaken. Catholics refer to a “unanimous consent” which is not true to history, because you can always find exceptions among Church fathers.

**Reply to Objection **

The Catholic Church understands and recognizes this. The phrase “unanimous consent” does not mean “literally everyone,” but rather, “substantial, overwhelming agreement and consensus,” such as was found, for example, with regard to the biblical canon (an example Protestants are fairly familiar with). This can be proven with historical facts, as above. Oftentimes, modern usages of a word differ from medieval usage, based on the original Latin definitions, so that some wrongly believe a contradiction is present.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/08/were-church-fathers-closer-to.html
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Whats underlined in red should also be pertainable to the necessity of baptism, and all the other sacramental "necessities"
Click to expand...
No, it shouldn’t. That is not how Catholics or Orthodox or Lutherans view baptism (I say that simply to point out that your understanding of baptism is not self-evident). There is no reason, on the face of it, to think that Clement would have agreed with your view that baptism is a “work that we have wrought in holiness of heart.” You have to provide evidence for this understanding of baptism–you cannot simply assume it.

This is the essence of your error.You assume that baptismal regeneration is incompatible with justification by faith. The fact that Luther did not think so should surely be a warning flag telling you that your position is hardly obvious!

In Christ,

Edwin
 
myfavoritmartin said:
FROM BISHOP CLEMENT OF ROME…

“And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Maker and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his works. By his supreme power he founded the heavens, and by his incomprehensible understanding he ordered them. The earth he separated from the water that surrounded it, and fixed it on the firm foundation of his own will. The animals which inhabit therein he commanded to be by his ordinance. Having made beforehand the sea and the animals that are therein, he shut them in by his own power. Man, the most excellent of all animals, infinite in faculty, he moulded with his holy and faultless hands, in the impress of his likeness. For thus saith God: Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. And God made man. Male and female made he them. When, therefore, he had finished all things, he praised and blessed them, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply. Let us see, therefore, how all the just have been adorned with good works. Yea, the Lord himself rejoiced when he had adorned himself with his works. Having, therefore, this example, let us come in without shrinking to his will; let us work with all our strength the work of righteousness.” (32-33)

Whats underlined in red should also be pertainable to the necessity of baptism, and all the other sacramental "necessities"

“first Clement” earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
Click to expand...
Contarini said:
No, it shouldn’t. That is not how Catholics or Orthodox or Lutherans view baptism (I say that simply to point out that your understanding of baptism is not self-evident). There is no reason, on the face of it, to think that Clement would have agreed with your view that baptism is a “work that we have wrought in holiness of heart.” You have to provide evidence for this understanding of baptism–you cannot simply assume it.

This is the essence of your error.You assume that baptismal regeneration is incompatible with justification by faith. The fact that Luther did not think so should surely be a warning flag telling you that your position is hardly obvious!

In Christ,

Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin,
He was excluding all works, including good works.
Edwin, baptism is a work! wouldn’t you agree?
He goes on to encourage them to do the works he excluded, so there can be no seperation of type of work whether bad or good.
 
Good Morning Martin
By Clement of Rome
And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith
Click to expand...
I just wanted to make a quick statement on this as you seemed to be interested in this statement. As a Catholic, and any Catholic, We agree with this statement completely. But anyone needs to be careful when looking at statements like this.

Catholics agree that we cannot be Justified by our selves…
We Cannot Be Justified by what we know
We cannot be Justified by what we do…

If someone does believe this, it is equivalently to saying we ‘Deserve’ Heaven. This of coarse is categorically false. No one DESERVES heaven.

IF we do no have faith, then nothing else matters. Faith is so important, as is love, and hope. If you don’t have those. NOTHING you do will ever change

This realy is in actuality a restatement of eph2:8. We are saved by Grace Alone… Something the Catholic Church has always taught.

Where you and I may differ is you may believe that once justified, you can never loose it. The OSAS position. Something for another thread 😉

We believe that you Can loose it if you are not obedient and repent when you fail. You Can’t Earn something that was freely given to you. But you can loose it or refuse it.

Example. You are hired to do a job. Once you get the Job, you do everything you can to do it right. Does all your hard work AFTER you were hired effect whether or not you get hired? Of Course not… To say it does introduces a causality problem

Flip side, You are given a job, you do poorly once hired, and get fired… Does the fact that you did poorly effect your original hiring?

Nope. again Causality. However, by NOT following what you were suppose to do, the Boss gave you the boat

Anyway…

Point is… Clement wasn’t taking about faith alone. He was simply saying you cannot EARN your way to heaven. Something the Catholic Church has always taught…

To My Brother in Christ
 
I’m not going to join in; I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the very interesting and scholarly discussion. I am always glad when other people do so much research work I now don’t have to do! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top