J
- Status
R
RNRobert
Guest
I’m not sure if I mentioned it here or on another thread, but I find it rather odd for Protestants to use the ECF to “prove” their position. To the best of my knowledge,none of the Reformers used the ECF as the basis for their revolt, the simply read the Scriptures and decided it meant other than what the Catholic Church said it meant.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
This is a big NO NO Simon!
You are quoting James White verbatim without attribution. You took this from a former Protestant’s Catholic apologetic website socrates58.blogspot.com and conveniently avoid his answer to White’s idiotic assertion.
St Irenaeus never wavered from the perpetual virginity of Mary. As did Martin Luther! There is no proof that the phrase “come together” meant sexual intercourse. This is James White’s assertion which he ignores requests to back up with historical references.
Simon, you’re flailing about here. You don’t read the quotes in context and you quote others without giving attribution.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Sorry, Simon, I must be stupid. Where is it exactly that these quotations support your contention about Mary’s immaculate conception?
One is contrary to yours and the others are off point.
Pax Christi
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
Apostolic Succession makes you Catholic. Nothing more nothing less.
If you have Apostolic Succession you are the True Church. Many Churches have this, only 1 or possibly 2 of them are considered protestant, those are the scandinavian lutherans (very few of them are in the US) and possibly anglicans (I still cant figure out if anglicans are or aren’t)
Though the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the apostles, it has some “messy” methods & manners in which it formulates it’s theology which could use further clarification through an ecumenical council with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Since I am an ancient pre-schism Roman Catholic, I tend to agree with Alexius comments, however most Roman doctrines of today do match those of the apostles. It is the minority which do not match the apostles and Church Fathers. An important minority no doubt, but still a minority, not majority.
If acknowledgment of Rome’s primacy exists would not the definitions brought forth by Rome be subject to all who follow her, thus universal? Yet even Rome herself allows for such, for lack of a better term, “ignoring” of Latin Church theology. Eastern Papal Catholics are not required to necessarily accept Purgatory, they just can’t reject it. A very strange and one might say hypocritical position, but apparently the price to pay for attempting to bridge East and West. For Western theology does not function in Eastern form. How can one accept the Immaculate Conception yet remain with the Eastern belief of “original sin?” How does one celebrate Divine Liturgy when the Roman Church places a sacrificial element instead of the orthodox (lowercase “o”) thanksgiving, the former being the form and function of the Liturgy? These and other experiences are the challenges the Eastern Papal Catholics have to overcome and define. Being a Maronite or a Byzantine Catholic doesn’t mean dressing up Eastern and having Western theology; one does not function fluidly within another.
I can also assure you that there exists a great amount of Eastern Papal Catholics who do live their lives not accepting infallible doctrines issued by Rome, be it patriarchs (I advise you to research the Melkites in this regard), bishops, priests, or laity. I am not trying to make a point of contention, I am just showing the puzzling situation Eastern Papal Catholics live with. I have met Maronites on both sides of the spectrum, staunchly “traditional” and staunchly Latinized. I can 100% assure you that Rome allows what I speak to exist.
the Church of Rome is a western church and with that comes it’s western theology. Eastern Papal Catholics, generally speaking, are new to the arena of doctrinal consideration, Rome was concerned about her theology, however she claimed it being universal. Eastern Theology is Eastern Theology, the Early Church Fathers of the Byzantine Catholics are the Early Church Fathers of the Orthodox, and they say the same thing. It is much more than dressing in Eastern Vestments. Some of the same issues that separate Holy Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental) and the Roman Church exist within the (Latin) Catholic Church.
about early Xristo-Theotokos devotion newadvent encylopedia says: "In the paintings of the catacombs more particularly, we appreciate the exceptional position that she began, from an early period, to occupy in the thoughts of the faithful. Some of these frescoes, representing the prophecy of Isaias, are believed to date from the first half of the second century. Three others which represent the adoration of the Magi are a century later. There is also a remarkable but very much mutilated bas-relief, found at Carthage, which may be probably assigned to the time of Constantine. "
Glory be to the Lord of the Apostles, and His mercy be upon us forever!
If you have Apostolic Succession you are the True Church. Many Churches have this, only 1 or possibly 2 of them are considered protestant, those are the scandinavian lutherans (very few of them are in the US) and possibly anglicans (I still cant figure out if anglicans are or aren’t)
Though the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the apostles, it has some “messy” methods & manners in which it formulates it’s theology which could use further clarification through an ecumenical council with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Since I am an ancient pre-schism Roman Catholic, I tend to agree with Alexius comments, however most Roman doctrines of today do match those of the apostles. It is the minority which do not match the apostles and Church Fathers. An important minority no doubt, but still a minority, not majority.
If acknowledgment of Rome’s primacy exists would not the definitions brought forth by Rome be subject to all who follow her, thus universal? Yet even Rome herself allows for such, for lack of a better term, “ignoring” of Latin Church theology. Eastern Papal Catholics are not required to necessarily accept Purgatory, they just can’t reject it. A very strange and one might say hypocritical position, but apparently the price to pay for attempting to bridge East and West. For Western theology does not function in Eastern form. How can one accept the Immaculate Conception yet remain with the Eastern belief of “original sin?” How does one celebrate Divine Liturgy when the Roman Church places a sacrificial element instead of the orthodox (lowercase “o”) thanksgiving, the former being the form and function of the Liturgy? These and other experiences are the challenges the Eastern Papal Catholics have to overcome and define. Being a Maronite or a Byzantine Catholic doesn’t mean dressing up Eastern and having Western theology; one does not function fluidly within another.
I can also assure you that there exists a great amount of Eastern Papal Catholics who do live their lives not accepting infallible doctrines issued by Rome, be it patriarchs (I advise you to research the Melkites in this regard), bishops, priests, or laity. I am not trying to make a point of contention, I am just showing the puzzling situation Eastern Papal Catholics live with. I have met Maronites on both sides of the spectrum, staunchly “traditional” and staunchly Latinized. I can 100% assure you that Rome allows what I speak to exist.
the Church of Rome is a western church and with that comes it’s western theology. Eastern Papal Catholics, generally speaking, are new to the arena of doctrinal consideration, Rome was concerned about her theology, however she claimed it being universal. Eastern Theology is Eastern Theology, the Early Church Fathers of the Byzantine Catholics are the Early Church Fathers of the Orthodox, and they say the same thing. It is much more than dressing in Eastern Vestments. Some of the same issues that separate Holy Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental) and the Roman Church exist within the (Latin) Catholic Church.
about early Xristo-Theotokos devotion newadvent encylopedia says: "In the paintings of the catacombs more particularly, we appreciate the exceptional position that she began, from an early period, to occupy in the thoughts of the faithful. Some of these frescoes, representing the prophecy of Isaias, are believed to date from the first half of the second century. Three others which represent the adoration of the Magi are a century later. There is also a remarkable but very much mutilated bas-relief, found at Carthage, which may be probably assigned to the time of Constantine. "
Glory be to the Lord of the Apostles, and His mercy be upon us forever!
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
Apostolic Succession makes you Catholic. Nothing more nothing less.
If you have Apostolic Succession you are the True Church. Many Churches have this, only 1 or possibly 2 of them are considered protestant, those are the scandinavian lutherans (very few of them are in the US) and possibly anglicans (I still cant figure out if anglicans are or aren’t)
Though the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the apostles, it has some “messy” methods & manners in which it formulates it’s theology which could use further clarification through an ecumenical council with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Since I am an ancient pre-schism Roman Catholic, I tend to agree with Alexius comments, however most Roman doctrines of today do match those of the apostles. It is the minority which do not match the apostles and Church Fathers. An important minority no doubt, but still a minority, not majority.
If acknowledgment of Rome’s primacy exists would not the definitions brought forth by Rome be subject to all who follow her, thus universal? Yet even Rome herself allows for such, for lack of a better term, “ignoring” of Latin Church theology. Eastern Papal Catholics are not required to necessarily accept Purgatory, they just can’t reject it. A very strange and one might say hypocritical position, but apparently the price to pay for attempting to bridge East and West. For Western theology does not function in Eastern form. How can one accept the Immaculate Conception yet remain with the Eastern belief of “original sin?” How does one celebrate Divine Liturgy when the Roman Church places a sacrificial element instead of the orthodox (lowercase “o”) thanksgiving, the former being the form and function of the Liturgy? These and other experiences are the challenges the Eastern Papal Catholics have to overcome and define. Being a Maronite or a Byzantine Catholic doesn’t mean dressing up Eastern and having Western theology; one does not function fluidly within another.
I can also assure you that there exists a great amount of Eastern Papal Catholics who do live their lives not accepting infallible doctrines issued by Rome, be it patriarchs (I advise you to research the Melkites in this regard), bishops, priests, or laity. I am not trying to make a point of contention, I am just showing the puzzling situation Eastern Papal Catholics live with. I have met Maronites on both sides of the spectrum, staunchly “traditional” and staunchly Latinized. I can 100% assure you that Rome allows what I speak to exist.
the Church of Rome is a western church and with that comes it’s western theology. Eastern Papal Catholics, generally speaking, are new to the arena of doctrinal consideration, Rome was concerned about her theology, however she claimed it being universal. Eastern Theology is Eastern Theology, the Early Church Fathers of the Byzantine Catholics are the Early Church Fathers of the Orthodox, and they say the same thing. It is much more than dressing in Eastern Vestments. Some of the same issues that separate Holy Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental) and the Roman Church exist within the (Latin) Catholic Church.
about early Xristo-Theotokos devotion newadvent encylopedia says: "In the paintings of the catacombs more particularly, we appreciate the exceptional position that she began, from an early period, to occupy in the thoughts of the faithful. Some of these frescoes, representing the prophecy of Isaias, are believed to date from the first half of the second century. Three others which represent the adoration of the Magi are a century later. There is also a remarkable but very much mutilated bas-relief, found at Carthage, which may be probably assigned to the time of Constantine. "
If you have Apostolic Succession you are the True Church. Many Churches have this, only 1 or possibly 2 of them are considered protestant, those are the scandinavian lutherans (very few of them are in the US) and possibly anglicans (I still cant figure out if anglicans are or aren’t)
Though the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the apostles, it has some “messy” methods & manners in which it formulates it’s theology which could use further clarification through an ecumenical council with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Since I am an ancient pre-schism Roman Catholic, I tend to agree with Alexius comments, however most Roman doctrines of today do match those of the apostles. It is the minority which do not match the apostles and Church Fathers. An important minority no doubt, but still a minority, not majority.
If acknowledgment of Rome’s primacy exists would not the definitions brought forth by Rome be subject to all who follow her, thus universal? Yet even Rome herself allows for such, for lack of a better term, “ignoring” of Latin Church theology. Eastern Papal Catholics are not required to necessarily accept Purgatory, they just can’t reject it. A very strange and one might say hypocritical position, but apparently the price to pay for attempting to bridge East and West. For Western theology does not function in Eastern form. How can one accept the Immaculate Conception yet remain with the Eastern belief of “original sin?” How does one celebrate Divine Liturgy when the Roman Church places a sacrificial element instead of the orthodox (lowercase “o”) thanksgiving, the former being the form and function of the Liturgy? These and other experiences are the challenges the Eastern Papal Catholics have to overcome and define. Being a Maronite or a Byzantine Catholic doesn’t mean dressing up Eastern and having Western theology; one does not function fluidly within another.
I can also assure you that there exists a great amount of Eastern Papal Catholics who do live their lives not accepting infallible doctrines issued by Rome, be it patriarchs (I advise you to research the Melkites in this regard), bishops, priests, or laity. I am not trying to make a point of contention, I am just showing the puzzling situation Eastern Papal Catholics live with. I have met Maronites on both sides of the spectrum, staunchly “traditional” and staunchly Latinized. I can 100% assure you that Rome allows what I speak to exist.
the Church of Rome is a western church and with that comes it’s western theology. Eastern Papal Catholics, generally speaking, are new to the arena of doctrinal consideration, Rome was concerned about her theology, however she claimed it being universal. Eastern Theology is Eastern Theology, the Early Church Fathers of the Byzantine Catholics are the Early Church Fathers of the Orthodox, and they say the same thing. It is much more than dressing in Eastern Vestments. Some of the same issues that separate Holy Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental) and the Roman Church exist within the (Latin) Catholic Church.
about early Xristo-Theotokos devotion newadvent encylopedia says: "In the paintings of the catacombs more particularly, we appreciate the exceptional position that she began, from an early period, to occupy in the thoughts of the faithful. Some of these frescoes, representing the prophecy of Isaias, are believed to date from the first half of the second century. Three others which represent the adoration of the Magi are a century later. There is also a remarkable but very much mutilated bas-relief, found at Carthage, which may be probably assigned to the time of Constantine. "
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
You are quite wrong, read up on Martin Luther.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
In the twenty-five sessions of Trent, the term “unanimous consent” appears five times. Of those, two refer directly to the bishops present at the synod who voted unanimously to accept decrees—not to the ECF. The ancient fathers are referred to thrice: in session 7 about the Bible, in session 14, on confession being a sacrament, and in session 23, on ordination of priests being a sacrament. Where in the body of the conciliar documents does it state that our Sacred Tradition must be derived from a “unanimous consent” of the ECF?
And even if it is there, do realize what “unanimous consent” entails? Here’s a good article on the subject:
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ198.HTM
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“Unanimous Consent” of the Church Fathers
by Steve Ray
The Church sees the Fathers as the successors of the apostles, the closest source to the apostolic teaching and tradition, and therefore authoritative. One must ask, why should I trust Protestant Joe X’s interpretation, or his pastor’s, when we can go back to the source and listen to those who knew the apostles?
One must understand what the Church means when she is bound by the *unanimous consent *of the Fathers. The Church cannot, has not, and does not contradict Herself. She can develop doctrine, but she cannot deny what is organically Her heritage and the foundation of her existence in the Scriptures, the Tradition and the Magisterium. The Church does not claim that all her “authority rests” on the consent of the Fathers. It rests on several things including Scripture; the Fathers are one element of this foundation.
Second, the Church has never understood or taught that unanimous consent means that the Fathers are individually infallible or that various Fathers have never held an alternative opinion. Any given passage of scripture may have several valid applications and they were all appropriated by the Fathers depending on the matter at hand. Thus, a Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter’s *confession *as the Rock. This in not unusual or unexpected. It certainly does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
The Catholic Church has organically grown up from the apostles and the Fathers. To say that it does not agree with them is absurd. Now, what is the unanimous consent of the Fathers? The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary gives a good simple definition:
When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind. “Consent”, as was used when coined means “to be of the same mind or opinion.” Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have “unanimous consent.”
To illustrate, I cite the following excerpt from Pope Leo XIII (“The Study of Holy Scripture”, from the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Nov., 1893) where the pope admits that there are varying ideas among the Fathers and that not everything they write is a matter of dogma. He could not say this if he understood “unanimous consent” as having to agree on every detail:
Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for “in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,” according to the opinion of St. Thomas. In another passage he most prudently holds: “It seems to me to be safer that such opinions as the philosophers have expressed in common and are not repugnant to our faith should not be asserted as dogmas of the faith, even if they are introduced some times under the names of philosophers, nor should they thus be denied as contrary to faith, lest an opportunity be afforded to the philosophers of this world to belittle the teachings of the faith” Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London: B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 491-492).
by Steve Ray
The Church sees the Fathers as the successors of the apostles, the closest source to the apostolic teaching and tradition, and therefore authoritative. One must ask, why should I trust Protestant Joe X’s interpretation, or his pastor’s, when we can go back to the source and listen to those who knew the apostles?
One must understand what the Church means when she is bound by the *unanimous consent *of the Fathers. The Church cannot, has not, and does not contradict Herself. She can develop doctrine, but she cannot deny what is organically Her heritage and the foundation of her existence in the Scriptures, the Tradition and the Magisterium. The Church does not claim that all her “authority rests” on the consent of the Fathers. It rests on several things including Scripture; the Fathers are one element of this foundation.
Second, the Church has never understood or taught that unanimous consent means that the Fathers are individually infallible or that various Fathers have never held an alternative opinion. Any given passage of scripture may have several valid applications and they were all appropriated by the Fathers depending on the matter at hand. Thus, a Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter’s *confession *as the Rock. This in not unusual or unexpected. It certainly does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
The Catholic Church has organically grown up from the apostles and the Fathers. To say that it does not agree with them is absurd. Now, what is the unanimous consent of the Fathers? The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary gives a good simple definition:
When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind. “Consent”, as was used when coined means “to be of the same mind or opinion.” Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have “unanimous consent.”
To illustrate, I cite the following excerpt from Pope Leo XIII (“The Study of Holy Scripture”, from the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Nov., 1893) where the pope admits that there are varying ideas among the Fathers and that not everything they write is a matter of dogma. He could not say this if he understood “unanimous consent” as having to agree on every detail:
Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for “in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,” according to the opinion of St. Thomas. In another passage he most prudently holds: “It seems to me to be safer that such opinions as the philosophers have expressed in common and are not repugnant to our faith should not be asserted as dogmas of the faith, even if they are introduced some times under the names of philosophers, nor should they thus be denied as contrary to faith, lest an opportunity be afforded to the philosophers of this world to belittle the teachings of the faith” Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London: B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 491-492).
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Mannyfit:
Manny followed up by posting4.5.6.7th century writers,
And I said in ensinuating these constituted unanimous consent, he was appearing decietful so I went on to share ECF’s disputing or not acknowledgeing what is now in the
21st century accepted as having been dogma since the begining.
Jon,
I was never responding to one specific dogma, rather the above posts only.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
See above^
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
MFM-
Luther, like all of you who are his spirtual sons in rebellion against the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles in communion with Peter, was quite capable of “cutting and pasting” quotations from the Early Church Fathers that seemed to bolster his heretical positions.
Paraphrasing Patrick Madrid from his definitive victory over James White in the Sola Scriptura debate, this approach to the ECF’s is similar to the kidnapper who cuts up magazine pages to create a ransom note. And to quote him directly
rotestant apologists read back into Scripture, and the writings of the Church Fathers, the particular doctrines they wish to find. And they ignore, or explain away, what they don’t wish to see. Mormons do this in their attempt to prove, so-called, that the Bible and the early Church believed in many gods.Since the time the Devil used Scripture to tempt Jesus in the desert, doctrinal error has always been advanced under the guise of Bible verses. Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets who will come to you in sheep’s clothing but, underneath, they are ravenous wolves.” Error comes packaged under the wrapping paper of Bible verses. The Arians did it. The Albigensians did it. The Mormons do it. And, I’m afraid tonight, Mr. White is doing it.Sola Scriptura, JesusforMadrid and others are simply following the well-worn path of their forefathers.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
JesusforMadrid said:
But moreover, I set out this challenge because, as a seeker and not an apologist, I would honestly understand the RC position regarding authority much better if there were “unanimous consent” of the ECFs.
Many have contributed above and I thank you all for your thoughtfulness particularly Mannyfit75 and Myfavoritemartin. A few contributions of my own.
First, who are the “Fathers”? New Advent, a Roman Catholic organisation, lists the following newadvent.org/fathers/
There they are, all 68 of them. Great Godly men many, if not all.
So, how do the current Marian domas and doctrines do relative to these Fathers? Do they get “unanimous consent” or even “majority consent”?
First, the idea of “consent” implies action. Being silent on an issue does not prove consent. It does’t prove the contrary, either, but the burden of proof is on showing agreement, not just lack of disagreement.
So lets review the citations above and see if we can get “unanimous consent”.
Mannyfit75 said:
However, then Mannyfit75 said:
I set out a challenge for someone to show me that there was “unanimous consent” of the Fathers on Marian dogma and doctrine. I asked this because the Council of Trent mentions this standard and equates it to Scripture.
But moreover, I set out this challenge because, as a seeker and not an apologist, I would honestly understand the RC position regarding authority much better if there were “unanimous consent” of the ECFs.
Many have contributed above and I thank you all for your thoughtfulness particularly Mannyfit75 and Myfavoritemartin. A few contributions of my own.
First, who are the “Fathers”? New Advent, a Roman Catholic organisation, lists the following newadvent.org/fathers/
There they are, all 68 of them. Great Godly men many, if not all.
So, how do the current Marian domas and doctrines do relative to these Fathers? Do they get “unanimous consent” or even “majority consent”?
First, the idea of “consent” implies action. Being silent on an issue does not prove consent. It does’t prove the contrary, either, but the burden of proof is on showing agreement, not just lack of disagreement.
So lets review the citations above and see if we can get “unanimous consent”.
- Mary the Mother of God. This is not a huge issue to most Protestants, since you could argue that it is just the logical conclusion of claiming Jesus=God, but lets give it a go anyway. Since the first citation listed is Alexander of Alexandria, AD 324, we can fairly conclude that Fathers before him have not given consent, or that their consent is lacking. Several sources are listed that are not “Fathers”. So you have 6/68 or 9%. Perhaps there are some missing? However, conclusion: no unanimous consent.
- Immaculate Conception. Now we’ve got one. On this one, there are 9 Fathers that provide “consent” as well as some other citations. So we have 9/68 or 13%. Conclusion: no unanimous consent.
- Mary Ever Virgin. Here, things become even more interesting: 11 Fathers who, according to Mannyfit, support the case! So we have 16% providing consent. Note additionally that there are several fathers who many believe argue that she was not ever virgin, including Ireneas and Tertulian (both counted as for and against). Conclusion: no unanimous consent.
- Mary’s Assumption to Heaven. Well, since most of the citations are pretty late (4th century or later), there are no Fathers (of those listed above) who provide support. 0%. Conclusion: no unanimous consent.
- **Sinlessness **.We don’t have citations on the “sinlessness of Mary” (please provide Mannyfit75!) but we do have several citations that she was not sinless, from some pretty respectable Fathers: Ambrose (cited above), Justin Martyr (cited above),Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, 7), Basil (Epistle 260), John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44). Aquinas also argues against this, though he wasn’t a Father, so disregard his opposion. In any case ,conclusion: no unanimous consent.
- The Marian doctrines or dogmas examined, including The title Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, Ever Virgin, Assumption and Sinlessness do not enjoy the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers.
- The relatively few Fathers who opine on any given Marian doctrine or dogma suggests that the RC church is being selective in its use of the Fathers to justify its doctrine.
- The lack of documentation from the 1st and 2nd century for these doctrines is particularly troubling. How could Mary be assummed to Heaven and it doesn’t appear anywhere in any of the Father’s writings until more than 300 years afterwards? In all the meticulous writings of Ignatius, 7 epistles in total in this period, an no mention of the Assumption of Mary, the mother of Jesus? What, it wasn’t considered important? This would have been absolutely remarkable and all over the ECF documents. Yet not a word.
- The dogmas of Mary regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary, were declared in absence of “unanimous consent” of of the Fathers and thus, not in accord with the standard used at Trent. Of course, this could have been based on purely scriptural reasons, though these seem speculative.
R
Redbandito
Guest
JesusforMadrid, please read the article posted on “Unanimous Consent” by Steve Ray. You are misrepresenting said position. Read it and then we can talk.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
But that doesn’t change my quest. The RC church can define “unanimous consent” any way it wants, including some way that goes against common sense.
As I explain above:
Without “unanimous consent”, an argument for doctrine based on tradition seems arbitrary and capricious.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Accusations! without a leg.
1.)You’ve linked a catholic apologist website
2.) I copied no one verbatim and you know it.
I read them in light of their context much clearer than you my friend, I am not wearing your Roman colored lens.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Well stated, thanks.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
- Status