M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
A POSTER asked if you could prove the ECF where unanimous… you saidmartin,
Like I stated early. Even though not all ECF believed in certain doctrine about Mary, the Church itself made it final and dogmatic.
“no problem” see posts around 129-133
You went on to post probably 30,000 letters over 7 or 8 posts…
BUT…
Now your agreeing that not all believed about Mary?
Emmanuel, no offense… but WHICH is it?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
7.)
John Chrysostom
Let’s compare claims of your Pope Pius IX to John Chrysostom writing:
“The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin – a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts… Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin…And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner – this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine…this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as the Fathers discerned, was recorded in the Divine Scriptures” - Pope Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus)
“even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. ‘For while He yet talked to the people,’ it is said, ‘one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’ [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, ‘While He yet talked to the people;’ as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)
“For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, ‘Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?’ (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion…And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
John Chrysostom
Let’s compare claims of your Pope Pius IX to John Chrysostom writing:
“The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin – a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts… Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin…And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner – this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine…this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as the Fathers discerned, was recorded in the Divine Scriptures” - Pope Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus)
“even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. ‘For while He yet talked to the people,’ it is said, ‘one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’ [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, ‘While He yet talked to the people;’ as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)
“For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, ‘Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?’ (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion…And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I did not say that all ECF believe, I said the majority of them and it was affirmed by the Catholic Church to hold the Marian Doctrines, like Assumption, Immaculate Conception, and that she remain a Virgin all her life.A POSTER asked if you could prove the ECF where unanimous… you said
“no problem” see posts around 129-133
You went on to post probably 30,000 letters over 7 or 8 posts…
BUT…
Now your agreeing that not all believed about Mary?
Emmanuel, no offense… but WHICH is it?
It is the Church authority who overruled the other ECF who did not agree with the dogmas. Much like most ECF did not agree what should be put in the Bible.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
martin,
Emmanuel,Like I stated early. Even though not all ECF believed in certain doctrine about Mary, the Church itself made it final and dogmatic.
There were even ECF who doubt to put the Book of Revelations of in the canon of Scripture as well as other NT text. Does it mean that some of the text in the Bible are not inspired because one ECF does not believe.
The only institution that resolved and clear this issue is the Magisterium of the Church, who has the final say in all matters concerning faith and morals. Like I said before, ECF may disagree on certain dogmatic views, but the Catholic Church settle the issue through the Church Councils.
Most of what Simon is throwing out here is out of context. He seems to search for words and phrases, and finding what he thinks supports his argument, he throws it in.
Simon,
Look up the requirements to be considered ‘authoritative’ by the Magisterium (a word that is misused by non-Catholics and simply means 'the teaching authority of the Church). Go to the New Advent website, Catholic Encyclopedia, click on ‘F’ and find the listing ‘Fathers.’ Some of the ones you are quoting are commentators and exegetes, but have not been given ECF status.
This seems to be a Protestant bugabear to dig at Catholic dogma which they disagree with. The list of Early Church Fathers (a Catholic term and thus a Catholic definition) is pretty short, my friend.
Jonathan
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
A POSTER asked if you could prove the ECF where unanimous… you said
Simon, let’s get to the crux of the matter: what is it about Mary that YOU disagree with? Is it one of the two dogmas concerning the Mother of God? What is it?“no problem” see posts around 129-133
You went on to post probably 30,000 letters over 7 or 8 posts…
BUT…
Now your agreeing that not all believed about Mary?
Emmanuel, no offense… but WHICH is it?
Emmanuel’s citations were all clear on her stature in the early Church, including allusions to her Immaculate Conception. So what is bothering you here?
Pax Christi
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Jon,Emmanuel,
Most of what Simon is throwing out here is out of context. He seems to search for words and phrases, and finding what he thinks supports his argument, he throws it in.
Jonathan
Do not blindly accuse me of taking anything out of context, these aren’t my words they are Early writers… READ THEM and learn my friend.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I’m not offended but I already show you the position of the Church, or the Magisterium itself which over-rides all ECF writings.A POSTER asked if you could prove the ECF where unanimous… you said
“no problem” see posts around 129-133
You went on to post probably 30,000 letters over 7 or 8 posts…
BUT…
Now your agreeing that not all believed about Mary?
Emmanuel, no offense… but WHICH is it?
I have reviewed my post and yes, I did NOT say that ALL ECF held these views on Mary. They did not even agree what should be put into the Canon of Scripture. St. Jerome himself didn’t think the Book of Revelation should be added
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Okay, Simon, here it is.JonathanKinsman;1817383 said:I am showing ECF’s writings straight up, prove me wrong with facts not your opinion
I can’t get any clearer than that, with facts not opinion.
- There is NO place in the Bible where the genealogy of a woman is listed.
- There are many places in the OT where the genealogy of a man is listed.
- Jesus’ genealogy is listed in Matthew 1:-17.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
HE point blank stated they(ECF’s) where UNANIMOUS!Simon, let’s get to the crux of the matter: what is it about Mary that YOU disagree with? Is it one of the two dogmas concerning the Mother of God? What is it?
Emmanuel’s citations were all clear on her stature in the early Church, including allusions to her Immaculate Conception. So what is bothering you here?
Pax Christi
He needs to apologize to the readers for not being factual…
or i’d rather keep going to 30 like redbandito challenged me too. Nothing personal!
All for Christ!
Simon
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The Church itself was animous. I did give the facts and there was nothing in the post that was not factual. Some of the material I wrote are my opinions which are open for interpretation.HE point blank stated they(ECF’s) where UNANIMOUS!
He needs to apologize to the readers for not being factual…
or i’d rather keep going to 30 like redbandito challenged me too. Nothing personal!
All for Christ!
Simon
What post did I write that was not factual?
I don’t need to apologized. Martin, your post is lacking any charity at all. Relax, where is the Holy Spirit within you?
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Simon,7.)
John Chrysostom
Let’s compare claims of your Pope Pius IX to John Chrysostom writing:
“The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God,…, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts… Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin…And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner – this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine…this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as the Fathers discerned, was recorded in the Divine Scriptures” - Pope Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus)
“even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. ‘For while He yet talked to the people,’ it is said, 'one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’ [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach… And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, ‘While He yet talked to the people;’ as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)
“For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, ‘Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?’ (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion…And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
I don’t know where to begin here. You are quoting three excerpts which are concerned with two unrelated themes: the Immaculate Conception and with why Jesus spoke to His mother as recorded in the Gospels of St Matthew and St John.
Two are homilies (what most Protestants call ‘sermons,’ and are given during Mass by the presiding priest usually expounding upon what Gospel passage was just read) and the other is a papal bull declaring belief in the Immaculate Conception as mandatory for all Catholics.
Can you explain how these refute Mary? What? The dogma of Immaculate Conception? Why Jesus said what he said?
You are indeed throwing out quotes. None of which supports your contentions, however.
Jonathan
R
Redbandito
Guest
What do you think this proves? Catholics agree that Mary needed to be redeemed. Yet, that does not mean that her redemption occurred in the same way our’s did. Mary’s redemption occurred from the moment of her conception. God, through the grace of Jesus Christ, redeemed Mary before she sinned by preserving her from such sin. It is synonomous with the analogy of a pothole. While it is truly saving someone to pull them out of a hole they fell in to, it is a more perfect salvation to prevent them from falling into this hole in the first place. This is how it was for Mary.3.)
Origen
“While if by those ‘who were without sin’ he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who ‘did no sin.’…God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin…For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.” - Origen (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)
“Origen stated she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; , he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)
R
Redbandito
Guest
Exactly lak611! As it is very clear that they understood Christ’s Church was Catholic prior to the use of the words based on their writings.The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but in 2 Corinthians 13:13, it says, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” So it is clear that Paul understood and taught the Trinity.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
martin is not even trying to understand what we Catholic believe. He is just trying to disprove us.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
post 104I did give the facts and there was nothing in the post that was not factual.
What post did I write that was not factual?
Mannyfit75 Mannyfit75 is online now
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 2006
Location: Unknown
Posts: 931
Default Re: the “catholic but not Roman Catholic” argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by **JesusforMadrid View Post
So, I continue my quest: Can you or anybody show me unanimous consent of the Fathers on the Marian dogma?**
MANNY;
No problem.
That is my problem Underlined
R
Redbandito
Guest
No, but the interpretation is your’s. In other words, you are using them as if they are contradicting Catholic teaching. Yet, I have responded to two of them that are in perfect concert with the faith so far.CCEL.org all of these writing can be located their…
These are ECF writings. NOT MINE…
R
Redbandito
Guest
"Didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Church philosopher, disagree with the Immaculate Conception? I thought he was a very significant Church father!"
Indeed he was. Yet, Thomas was not infallible. Thomas disagreed because he thought this meant Mary would not need a redeemer. Yet, as I previously posted, the Church rectified Thomas’ concern to the revealed truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Three down. Bring on the next one.
Indeed he was. Yet, Thomas was not infallible. Thomas disagreed because he thought this meant Mary would not need a redeemer. Yet, as I previously posted, the Church rectified Thomas’ concern to the revealed truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Three down. Bring on the next one.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Yes, I did and I provided the ECF that show that they are in agreement with the Catholic Church position.post 104
Mannyfit75 Mannyfit75 is online now
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 2006
Location: Unknown
Posts: 931
Default Re: the “catholic but not Roman Catholic” argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by **JesusforMadrid View Post
So, I continue my quest: Can you or anybody show me unanimous consent of the Fathers on the Marian dogma?**
MANNY;
No problem.
I answered to the best to my ability. I knew off hand that not all of the ECF agree and that subject was not brought up until (you, martin said that there were). You cited your verses, and you show were about to show 30 verses.
I show more than enough ECF to support the position on Mary, but the authority comes from the Catholic Church itself. The Magisterium. It was the Magisterium of the Church who formalized the Bible, and defined the Trinity.
I did not promise that all ECF agree because that subject was not brought up until you mentioned it.
There was no disinformation, martin. I ask that you do not attack me again because when you said that I gave unreliable factual information was** insulting **to me.
You try to put my words out of context.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.