Name one issue the ECF's were unanimous on!

[myfavoritmartin]

chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_12.htm

Fran no offense but I always prefer these in full context not snippets, like “coming home” is using

 

[myfavoritmartin]

This is completely irrelevant to baptismal regenerationEdwin

A quick sidebar question Edwin.
If all whom are baptized aren’t regenerate, and baptism is not actually necessary for all, ie thief on the cross. How do you see it being a necessity?

 

[Melchior]

ANYONE?
Anything?

You can find what they were unanimous on in the Councils and Creeds.

Mel

 

[Conciliar]

ANYONE?
Anything?

I’m coming late to the dance and haven’t read all the pages, so my comments may not be relevant…

The truth is, it doesn’t matter one iota. If one’s mission is to find at least one ECF that voiced a dissenting opinion to a matter that is now part of the sacred depossit of faith, and use it as justification for rejecting doctrine, so be it. No one ECF spoke for the Church.

The writings of the Fathers are a valuable witness to the development of sacred Tradition. Unanimity is not required for that to be the case. These writings, even if unanimous in opinion, are still not a substitute for the sacred teaching office of the Magisterium.

 

[mikeledes]

Saint Clement also wrote:

“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, and the Faith and hope of the elect, as surely will he that humbly and with equanimity and without regret carries our the commandments and precepts given by God, be enrolled and and chosen among the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ…”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Contarini]

A quick sidebar question Edwin.
If all whom are baptized aren’t regenerate, and baptism is not actually necessary for all, ie thief on the cross. How do you see it being a necessity?

All who are baptized are regenerate except for adults who “pose an obstacle”–i.e., they come to the sacrament insincerely. However, neither I nor the Catholic Church believes in eternal security, so it’s quite possible for someone to lose the grace of baptism very quickly.

I never used the word “necessary,” actually. I would say that baptism is “normatively necessary,” but that makes things complicated. I prefer simply to say that baptism is the normal means, or the efficacious sign, of regenerating grace. Through baptism, God confers regenerating grace on all who believe (believing and “not posing an obstacle” are, as I understand them, the same thing).

Edwin

 

[mikeledes]

A quick sidebar question Edwin.
If all whom are baptized aren’t regenerate, and baptism is not actually necessary for all, ie thief on the cross. How do you see it being a necessity?

The same way a profession of faith is not necessary for an infant to be regenerated and saved. This unique situation does not make faith unnecessary. Unique situations like those of the “good thief” who, for obvious reasons, could not be baptized does not mean baptism is not a necessity.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Janet_S]

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.

Why didn’t you start this thread using the term “consensus?”

I suspect it may be because there is no getting around the fact that the consensus of beliefs of the early Church were Catholic beliefs (for example 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–all the things Edwin pointed out.)

You will find no consensus of beliefs among the ANF’s that look like fundamentalist Protestantism.

The writings of the Fathers give us a picture of the early Church–what they believed, what they did, what controversies were discussed. You can’t get a true picture of the historical Church by taking quotes out of context and putting a fundamentalist spin on them. That clearly is what you are trying to do.

And you may be blind to it, but it is your faith “tradition” that makes you read your theology into the ECF’s writings.

Are you really open to exploring the writings of the Fathers, or are you just selectively picking and choosing–just trying to trip up us Catholics on a technicality?

I’ve read enough of the ECF’s to know they weren’t Protestants.

 

[DJim]

Perhaps this has already been asked, but:

Is there anyone who can name one issue that the Protestant Reformers were unanimous on?

I think that would make an interesting comparison to the thread challenge…

DJim

 

[cpayne]

Perhaps this has already been asked, but:

Is there anyone who can name one issue that the Protestant Reformers were unanimous on?

I think that would make an interesting comparison to the thread challenge…

DJim

I’m only guessing: they all rejected the idea of papal authority?

 

[christcnection1]

That’s almost like asking if there is one major issue within the Protestant world that all of them agree on…

Trinity - No
Sacrament - No
Same Version of Sola Fide - No

You get the point…

I am not blaming Protestants; neither should you blame the ECFs.

If God didn’t want the Catholic Church to birth the New Testament as we know it, He could have provided some other means.

If God wanted to reveal to the apostles that their successors should go by scripture alone, He could have managed that as well.

Those who affirmed which books belonged in the Bible believed in Transubstantiation, Mary veneration, Tradition, Apostolic Authority, Prayers for the Dead, Infant Baptism, on and on…

I’m not even sure the apostles themselves agreed on everything!

If you want to find a consensus sure. If you’re looking for unanimous agreement on all matters all the time, I don’t think you’ll find that anywhere.

God Bless,
JB

DJim, I asked something similar to this on page one. I don’t think it was really dealt with.

Concerning issues within the Bible itself, there are few or no “Christian” groups (depending on how you choose to define that) that all agree on one single issue.

 

[DJim]

DJim, I asked something similar to this on page one. I don’t think it was really dealt with.

Concerning issues within the Bible itself, there are few or no “Christian” groups (depending on how you choose to define that) that all agree on one single issue.

Yes–Exactly the point, as I see it–the thread challenge is a bit silly, as “unanimity” does not have to literally mean all fathers believed exactly alike on a particular topic, but rather that the core majority of fathers were of “one mind” on the topic–the “unanimous consent of the Church Fathers” is not something to challenge, but something to rejoice in.

The question either reduces to uselessness (e.g., Protestants not liking the papacy [which is true but not useful]) or absurdity (e.g., throw out the Fathers’ testimony since they aren’t literally, to a man, in agreement).

OR, one can accept the Magisterium’s “unanimity” of teaching–which is sometimes based at least partially on the “unanimous consent” of the EC Fathers (but research would indicate that the phrase isn’t one thrown around cavalierly by the Magisterium)…

DJim

 

[JaneFrances]

ANYONE?
Anything?

After reading through the six pages of responses and tangents, I’m still confused.

What will this “one issue” prove to you? If there is “one issue” upon which every single Early Church Father, without exception, agreed on without any difference in perspective or diversity, what would that mean to you?

I know what you are looking for, but why?

Further, how do you determine who the Early Church Fathers are anyway? What is your criteria for those whose opinions would qualify?

This is such an odd line of thought as surely you realize that the Early Church Fathers are the Early Church Fathers, not simply because they wrote something during a specific time period, but rather because they wrote and spoke and preached in defense of the Church. Why would their opinions and accounts matter to you if you reject the Church who preserved their teachings as a preservation of the Faith?

 

[cpayne]

Regarding the ECFs, “unanimous agreement” doesn’t seem as important to me as Vincent’s tests: Do the doctrines appear in all of Christianity, throughout the history of Christianity, accepted by the majority of Christians?

This would, of course, include all sorts of doctrines (the doctrines of the divinity of Jesus and of the Trinity leap to mind).

 

[Janet_S]

Regarding the ECFs, “unanimous agreement” doesn’t seem as important to me as Vincent’s tests: Do the doctrines appear in all of Christianity, throughout the history of Christianity, accepted by the majority of Christians?

This would, of course, include all sorts of doctrines (the doctrines of the divinity of Jesus and of the Trinity leap to mind).

It also includes the NT canon.

There were 7 NT books whose canonicity was a subject of some controversy in the Church: the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse.

Also, there were disputed passages in the NT: the closing section of St. Mark’s Gospel, xvi, 9-20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection; the verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus, xxii, 43, 44; the Pericope Adulteræ, or narrative of the woman taken in adultery, St. John, vii, 53 to viii, 11.

Controversy within the Church is what leads her to define doctrine, including the canon of Scripture.

If there were never any disputes, there would have been no Church Councils.

 

[JaneFrances]

If there were never any disputes, there would have been no Church Councils.

Great point. And what also interests me is why we would have a a higher bar for the Church’s notion of “unanimous consensus” than Scripture itself.

Acts 4:32, for instance, tells us of the early Church, “All the believers were one in heart and mind.” Yet, we are well aware of certain disputes among the believers, not the least of which were the Apostles.

Why is it that one would accept the truth of Sacred Scripture, when it says “all” and understand the practical implications which provide a margin of dissent and objection, yet question the language of the Church when she defines “unanimous consensus” in much the same way?

 

[Philthy]

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

Of course not - you prefer the unamimous consent of your current interpretation of your current concept of what constitutes Scripture.

 

[Philthy]

ANYONE?
Anything?

We believe in one God

Heaven

Hell

Jesus Christ is the only Son of God

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary

Jesus suffered, died and was buried and on the third day was resurrected

He will come again to judge

Bishops, priests, deacons

Baptism, holy communion

 

[Janet_S]

Great point. And what also interests me is why we would have a a higher bar for the Church’s notion of “unanimous consensus” than Scripture itself.

Acts 4:32, for instance, tells us of the early Church, “All the believers were one in heart and mind.” Yet, we are well aware of certain disputes among the believers, not the least of which were the Apostles.

Why is it that one would accept the truth of Sacred Scripture, when it says “all” and understand the practical implications which provide a margin of dissent and objection, yet question the language of the Church when she defines “unanimous consensus” in much the same way?

I think the reason behind this thread is that MFM latched onto this article from William Webster (or someone who got it from Webster), and thought it was a good way to discredit our Catholic idea of Tradition.
the-highway.com/tradition_Webster.html

He seemed to think if he could find one dissenter, that would disqualify any particular doctrine from being accepted by the Church.

I’m not sure why this argument is so appealing to anti-Catholics. These claims hurt the entire Christian body, not just Catholics. From what Church did they get their Bible? I thought it was from the same one we got ours.

 

[JaneFrances]

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

But you do.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it is safe to say that you base your salvation, as all Christians do, on Jesus Christ. You know Him, at least in part, because of the witness of Sacred Scripture, known to us as the Bible.

Thus, especially as a Protestant Christian, you base your faith in the only One who saves directly contingent on your understanding of a group of texts which were gathered and affirmed by means of consensus and general agreement.

By no means were the Biblical texts a matter of “unanimous consensus,” as you define it, but the very Bible which you hold as the final authority (assuming that you claim it as such) is indeed a product of the general agreement and Church authority which you curiously reject.