The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[TNT]

Immaculate Conception
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
[Pre-27 book-only NT]
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

“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),in ULL,94

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

“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),in THEO,132

“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),in JUR,II:166
** [Post-27 book-only NT doctrine]**
“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,4236,in NPNF1,V:135

“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),in ULL,97

“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),in THEO,339

“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),in ULL,97

“[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),in CE

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay” Theotoknos of Livias,Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,180

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Marian devotion:
Early 400’s (a few yrs after the 27Book-Only NT idea):
Among ruins of African basilicas from that time:
“HOLY Mary, Help us”
Luke:
“ALL generations shall call me Blessed”
That of course would include Paul’s generation and all thereafter.
When did any Protestant last proclaim:
“Blessed Mary” or “Blessed be Mary”
In their assemblies?​

Prev post:
(417ad was actiually shortly after the 27book NT idea sprung up)

TNT IS BACK!!!

 

[TNT]

About the same time as the 27 books-only NT was invented:
**Assumption of Mary

Timothy of Jerusalem
**Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

**John the Theologian
**The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

 

[TNT]

So, to summarize:
The idea of explication of Doctrine in the original Deposit of Faith Stands unaffected and ** the “catholic but not Roman Catholic” argument bites the dust yet again.
But so to nail the coffin shut and give it a deserved resting place in the dirt of the earth:
Pope Damasus 382AD:
**"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the *universal Catholic ***Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;
Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.
Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, one to the Corinthians [2 Corinthians is not mentioned], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.
Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.
Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

**

 

[TNT]

John, thanks for your thoughts.
…
… Tertullian, denied that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
God bless.

So, you hold old TERT as an authority?
Good:
Tertullian of Carthage in A.D. 200 wrote: “Was anything hidden from Peter who was called the rock on which the Church would be built, who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on eath?”
Prescription Against the Heretics,22(A.D. 200)

See, the problem is:
If you cling to an ECF without the CONFIRMATION of the Church, then you have to hold all that he said. You can’t play smorgasbord with them.
So now you have to hold like old TERT, that Peter is that very ROCK UPON which the church is built, which is Catholic+Roman Catholic dogma. Yet anathema to an Evangelical.
Oh, and don’t forget to make the sign of the Cross on yourself …frequently because:
Tertullian of Carthage writes, “In all our travels, in our coming in and going out, in putting on our clothes and our shoes, at table, in going to rest, whatever we are doing we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.”

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Immaculate Conception
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
[Pre-27 book-only NT]
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

“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),in ULL,94

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

“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),in THEO,132

“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),in JUR,II:166
** [Post-27 book-only NT doctrine]**
“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,4236,in NPNF1,V:135

“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),in ULL,97

“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),in THEO,339

“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),in ULL,97

“[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),in CE

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay” Theotoknos of Livias,Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,180

Interesting, but as I have said, by the standards of “unanimous consent” of Trent, the ECF who don’t support the current Marian positions of the RC church are sufficient to put them in doubt, as far as I am concerned.

Also, these are all 3 century or later. By this time, Mary was long dead. Those apostles or Church Fathers who were alive at the time of her death do not support the modern RC church positions on Mary. If there were an apostle or 1st century Christian document that does, I would be more convinced. Their complete silence on such historical events as the possible assumption of Mary is quite telling, in my opinion.

 

[mark_a]

i hear the argument form protestants and orthodox that

“the early chruch was catholic as in universal but not ‘Roman Catholic’ this was invented later.”

when did the term “roman catholic” origionate and how would one show that the roman catholic church is the same catholic church that ignatius mentions in his letter. many fudemententalists will insist that the roman catholic church started with constantine paganizing christiandom and many orthodox will insist that the roman catholic church started at the great scism in 1054

Haven’t read the other posts, so maybe these tidbits have been presented:

The term “Roman” Catholic was coined by Anglicans after their split from the Catholic Church. The term was meant to be insulting to people who remained loyal to the Catholic Church.

In other countries, the Orthodox refer to themselves as (capital “O”) Orthodox Catholic.

 

[TNT]

Interesting, but as I have said, by the standards of “unanimous consent” of Trent, the ECF who don’t support the current Marian positions of the RC church are sufficient to put them in doubt, as far as I am concerned.

Also, these are all 3 century or later. By this time, Mary was long dead. Those apostles or Church Fathers who were alive at the time of her death do not support the modern RC church positions on Mary. If there were an apostle or 1st century Christian document that does, I would be more convinced. Their complete silence on such historical events as the possible assumption of Mary is quite telling, in my opinion.

Let’s face one important point that you are apparently assuming in your quest:
“ALL WRITINGS & PREACHINGS OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO US, 1900 YEARS LATER…NONE WERE LOST, DESTROYED IN THE NUMEROUS PERSECUTIONS, MISPLACED & ROTTED…YES ALL ARE PRESERVED.”

Of course this is a pipe dream. My generous guess is that we have possibly 15-20% of the 1st 2 centuruies & those often second handed.
Now, by your:

the ECF who don’t support the [current 27 as the true and ONLY valid number of NT scriptures] of the RC church are sufficient to put them in doubt, as far as I am concerned.

Really, not a single ECF could come off with that infamous “27” until the …**4th **century, must now be in your “novel & doubtful” belief category.
Every single one who listed them misinformed us as the to correct number for centuries!!
Yet you hold to that number for dear life as if it came from God in a thunderbolt.
Is this consistent thinking?

 

[rtconstant]

OK, here is what I don’t get. If the Catholic Church is not the church of the Apostles then we all Catholic, Protestant etc. have a serious problem. We know historically speaking that by the 2nd century the Church is very Catholic or at least Catholicky (if that could be a word). So if we assume that if at this point the Church has went horribly into apostacy we are then faced with the fact that True Church only lasted about a century.

Now while that many Protestants like to point at a lack of first century evidence that is pro-Catholic they really can’t point at anything from that time that resembles them either. So at this point were are we left?

We know that the Protestant movements are man made since they are new and so have excellent historical records of their origins. We can litterally point to the very people how defined their beliefs. However, that common ground that we all look too to define what is “Christian” were defined by the Catholic Church so if it is false then even our common ground is up for grabs. So if the Catholic Church is false then all Churches are false as well.

Without the ancient teachings of the Church then we can’t even go to the Bible as it is not self interpreting and without pre-existing doctrine we have no way of understanding it. Also we have accept the fact that at the very least the New Testament is questionable as it was established by a Church that fell away from true christianity. As such the modern Christian has to look in the mirror and understand that he actually has no reason to hold to any of his beliefs as they could all be lies.

This pretty much leaves us with Judaism (don’t get excited Valke) as the last relatively assured religion that God established.

I don’t understand why Protestants don’t get this. If Catholicism is essentially wrong then Protestantism must wrong. Without Catholicism there is no way of knowing what if any of our doctrines common or not is correct.

 

[Mannyfit75]

OK, here is what I don’t get. If the Catholic Church is not the church of the Apostles then we all Catholic, Protestant etc. have a serious problem. We know historically speaking that by the 2nd century the Church is very Catholic or at least Catholicky (if that could be a word). So if we assume that if at this point the Church has went horribly into apostacy we are then faced with the fact that True Church only lasted about a century.

Now while that many Protestants like to point at a lack of first century evidence that is pro-Catholic they really can’t point at anything from that time that resembles them either. So at this point were are we left?

We know that the Protestant movements are man made since they are new and so have excellent historical records of their origins. We can litterally point to the very people how defined their beliefs. However, that common ground that we all look too to define what is “Christian” were defined by the Catholic Church so if it is false then even our common ground is up for grabs. So if the Catholic Church is false then all Churches are false as well.

Without the ancient teachings of the Church then we can’t even go to the Bible as it is not self interpreting and without pre-existing doctrine we have no way of understanding it. Also we have accept the fact that at the very least the New Testament is questionable as it was established by a Church that fell away from true christianity. As such the modern Christian has to look in the mirror and understand that he actually has no reason to hold to any of his beliefs as they could all be lies.

This pretty much leaves us with Judaism (don’t get excited Valke) as the last relatively assured religion that God established.

I don’t understand why Protestants don’t get this. If Catholicism is essentially wrong then Protestantism must wrong. Without Catholicism there is no way of knowing what if any of our doctrines common or not is correct.

Interesting point of view. History also show that Protestantism came out of Catholicism by Reformer, Martin Luther, an Augustinian priest. To deny that the early Church is Catholic, would be like child disowning his mother.

Before the Reformation, Western Europe was Catholic.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Let’s face one important point that you are apparently assuming in your quest:
“ALL WRITINGS & PREACHINGS OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO US, 1900 YEARS LATER…NONE WERE LOST, DESTROYED IN THE NUMEROUS PERSECUTIONS, MISPLACED & ROTTED…YES ALL ARE PRESERVED.”

Of course this is a pipe dream. My generous guess is that we have possibly 15-20% of the 1st 2 centuruies & those often second handed.

This is no doubt true. We have lost many of the original documents and sermons. Yet, so what? Are you saying that there are doctrines of the RC church today that are supported principally from tradition, such as the Assumption or the immaculate conception, but that this tradition has been lost?

This raises a further difficulty for those who claim that the modern RC church is the same in doctrine and practice as the 1st century church.

1. The Council of Trent said that there had to be “unanimous consent” of the Early Church Fathers for a tradition to be considered doctrine.
2. We do not have many of the documents of the Early Church Fathers. Without more documents today, there cannot be “unanimous consent” because we don’t have much confidence (only 15-20% consent maximum, according to your figures).
3. The RC church cannot justify its doctrine based on tradition

If this is true, than how could Pius IX declare in the 19th century infallible the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary or Pius XII in the 20th century declare infallible the Assumption of Mary?

Actually, I don’t find the lack of existing documents very helpful in understanding the RC position. On the contrary, if raises a lot of questions about post Trent doctrine in the RC church.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Interesting point of view. History also show that Protestantism came out of Catholicism by Reformer, Martin Luther, an Augustinian priest. To deny that the early Church is Catholic, would be like child disowning his mother.

Before the Reformation, Western Europe was Catholic.

Who denies that the early church is “catholic”, in the sense of universal. This thread is about whether it is Roman Catholic, if it is like the modern RC church, a completely different matter.

Based on my reading of Scripture and the ECF, I think the answer is no. But I would be delighted to be convinced otherwise.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

See, the problem is: If you cling to an ECF without the CONFIRMATION of the Church, then you have to hold all that he said."

TNT, you have pretty colours in your posts. I should try that.

Actually, I don’t “cling” to ECF at all. Rather, I use it to try to understand Scripture and to compare it to modern RC doctrine.

The RC church has sent the bar very high on ECF supporting tradition: “unanimous consent”, according to Trent. So, ECFs who do not support the modern RC church’s doctrine are very troubling, for me as they should be for RCs, becuase without “unanimous consent”, (i) these doctrines are suspect or (ii) tradition alone is not a source of doctrine, certainly not on equal footing with Scripture, as Trent said.

 

[rtconstant]

“Roman Catholic” really means nothing. There is the Catholic Church. Within this Church there are many rites. The western church is pre-dominated by the Latin Rite which Protestants called “Roman Catholic”.

However trying to draw a devision between the original “catholic” church and the Catholic Church is really just a smoke screen. All current core doctrine has passed down and through the Catholic Church. The men who defined the Trinity and who compiled and approved the Bible were Catholic. The only connection to original Christianity that any modern Christian has through the Catholic Church.

The problem arises when protestants try to divorce the church of Christ from Catholicism. As this puts all currently held and assumed doctrines in jeopardy. During the early centuries of the Church the only reliable way of conveying Church teachings was oral tradition passed down through ordained ministers. If those ministers failed to accurately pass this down then the modern Christian is really left with nothing but his sentiment on what is Truth and what is not.

This is why the Protestant position is a paradoxical one. In order to justify the doctrines of the reformation one must disprove the Catholic Church. However, by disproving the Catholic Church the Protestant’s history becomes illegitimate.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

“Roman Catholic” really means nothing. There is the Catholic Church. Within this Church there are many rites. The western church is pre-dominated by the Latin Rite which Protestants called “Roman Catholic”.

However trying to draw a devision between the original “catholic” church and the Catholic Church is really just a smoke screen. All current core doctrine has passed down and through the Catholic Church. The men who defined the Trinity and who compiled and approved the Bible were Catholic. The only connection to original Christianity that any modern Christian has through the Catholic Church.

The problem arises when protestants try to divorce the church of Christ from Catholicism. As this puts all currently held and assumed doctrines in jeopardy. During the early centuries of the Church the only reliable way of conveying Church teachings was oral tradition passed down through ordained ministers. If those ministers failed to accurately pass this down then the modern Christian is really left with nothing but his sentiment on what is Truth and what is not.

This is why the Protestant position is a paradoxical one. In order to justify the doctrines of the reformation one must disprove the Catholic Church. However, by disproving the Catholic Church the Protestant’s history becomes illegitimate.

There is a thread on Sola Scriptura that addresses this in detail and much better than I could.

 

[seremina]

I know “Roman Catholic” usually refers to “Latin Rite” Catholics, but I also thought the title helped people to separate the difference between Catholics that aren’t in communion with Rome, and those Catholics that ARE in communion with Rome. Hence, “Roman”.

The Catholics not in communion with Rome, for instance, are these people… accus.us/ etc. If you do the research, you’ll probably find more that are more shocking than just this one.

Despite all this, though, what are the official definitions and are they being used correctly?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Who denies that the early church is “catholic”, in the sense of universal. This thread is about whether it is Roman Catholic, if it is like the modern RC church, a completely different matter.

Based on my reading of Scripture and the ECF, I think the answer is no. But I would be delighted to be convinced otherwise.

You think incorrectly then again I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

Roman Catholic is not official or the politically correct term to address “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” It is simply Catholic Church, and the early Church is today’s Catholic Church which is in union with the Pope.

You have misread the Scripture and the Writing of the ECF.

For one Ignatius is deeply developed with Liturgical worship of the Eucharist, which is very Catholic. St. Ignatius first called Christ’s Church Catholic in 107 A.D.

You are in error when you deny that CC today isn’t the same Body as it was over 2,000 yrs ago.

The practiced of modern Catholic Church differs, but the dogmas and doctrines are the same.

The problem with calling the Catholic Church as Roman Catholic, is to neglect the Eastern Rite Catholic Church or Byzantine Rite Catholic Church (whose style of worship is more like Greek Orthodox), but these Eastern Church are in union with the Pope.

Again, please re frame calling Roman Catholic Church. It is called Catholic Church headed by Jesus Christ, and is Prime Ministered by the current successor of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The term is “Roman Catholic” because it is the church headed by the Roman bishop. The term “catholic” is not monopolized by the Roman church, as the Orthodox and Roman churches were one during the first millenium. If Catholic means “that which has always been believed,” then most of the papal dogmas are out the window. I believe that Rome teaches “doctrinal development,” which means that the Roman doctrines of today do not match those of the apostles. Hence, the “receive and pass on,” turns into “receive, reform/use most resently obtained human reason to disect the doctrine in question, and pass on the rough draft.” Orthodoxy has things to learn from Rome, but Rome has much more to learn about preserving the apostolic treasure. The Roman church has no right to push universal papal supremacy on the Orthodox, when it is clear that the early Church gave Rome only primacy of HONOR, not authority! If any church needs to enter into communion with another, it is the Roman church which needs to go back to the Orthodox. The western bishop needs to go to the rest of the Church (the other four bishops in the east).

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

The term is not “Roman” Catholic. There is no Roman Catholic Church as pointed out earlier. I am a member of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, but that does not mean that there is a “Roman Catholic Church”. It wasn’t us who changed the name of the church, it was those separated from us. The Eastern Orthodox chose the term “Orthodox”, Protestants, obviously chose Evangelical. There are many sui juris particular churches which make up the Church Catholic. The Church in a strict sense has no proper name other than just “the Church”. This includes the Eastern Rites which are headed by their patriarchs which submit to the Bishop of Rome and accept his Primacy as guaranteed by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

This is no doubt true. We have lost many of the original documents and sermons. Yet, so what? Are you saying that there are doctrines of the RC church today that are supported principally from tradition, such as the Assumption or the immaculate conception, but that this tradition has been lost?

This raises a further difficulty for those who claim that the modern RC church is the same in doctrine and practice as the 1st century church.

1. The Council of Trent said that there had to be “unanimous consent” of the Early Church Fathers for a tradition to be considered doctrine.
2. We do not have many of the documents of the Early Church Fathers. Without more documents today, there cannot be “unanimous consent” because we don’t have much confidence (only 15-20% consent maximum, according to your figures).
3. The RC church cannot justify its doctrine based on tradition

If this is true, than how could Pius IX declare in the 19th century infallible the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary or Pius XII in the 20th century declare infallible the Assumption of Mary?

Actually, I don’t find the lack of existing documents very helpful in understanding the RC position. On the contrary, if raises a lot of questions about post Trent doctrine in the RC church.

Tradition doesn’t mean just early writings of the Church Fathers. Tradition is the whole deposit of faith handed down through the Apostles via the Catholic Church (through the Ordinary Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium) to today. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was defined as defide in 1854 with the promulgation of the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus by the Pope before the First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility in 1868. The Church works in mysterious ways to preserve Her Tradition – no matter who likes it!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Actually, I don’t find the lack of existing documents very helpful in understanding the RC position. On the contrary, if raises a lot of questions about post Trent doctrine in the RC church.

Can you name one thread of “Post Trent” doctrine which was not believed by the earlier Church Catholic?

www.scripturecatholic.com