The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JesusforMadrid said:
I’m glad I “win” but that is not my intention. Rather, I wanted to understand the case for Marian dogma and doctrine from tradition, as a seeker. The Fathers are important to help us understand the Bible and the history of the church. The case for the trinity is very strong from the Fathers, as it is in the Bible.

The Marian case from the Fathers is very weak, as my analysis has concluded. I have not addressed in detail the Scriptural evidence, but that, in my opinion, is also scant.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that, but have yet to PROVE it. I think the Fathers quoted earlier in the thread said a great deal about the consent of the Fathers in these areas.
 
Redbandito said:
How? Please make a logical argument as to why a doctrine must have no objectors in order to be based on tradition. I don’t see why this is necessary in the slightest. Again, the ECF’s were witnesses to the Apostolic Tradition, not Tradition itself.
Click to expand...
The question is not" who objects?" but rather " who actually consents? "
CC
 
JesusforMadrid said:
As you have seen from my analysis above, I do not think the key issue is those Fathers that clearly oppose the modern RC view. I think the real problem, for me anyway and again I am a seeker, is that so few of the Fathers: So few actually positively consent to these doctrines.

To review:
  1. Mother of God: only 9% of the Fathers consent to this
  2. Immaculate Conception. only 13% of the Fathers consent to this
  3. Mary Ever Virgin. Only 16% of the Fathers consent to this
  4. Mary’s Assumption to Heaven. 0% of the Fathers consent to this
  5. Sinlessness: 0% of the Fathers, based on the information collected so far, consent to this.
It is plausible that the Assumption of Mary occurred and NO Father would have mentioned it? We can argue about what Trent meant about “unanimous consent” all you want. Maybe Trent meant that when they say “unanimous consent”, they just mean “majority” or the most important or whatever.

But I cannot escape this conclusion: there is very little consent to much of Marian doctrine.The Fathers are absolutely not morally unanimous in their teaching on these Marian doctrines. And no amount of ad hominem attacks on me personally or on Protestantism can change this.
Click to expand...
J4M, I agree. The personal attacks must stop. Either way, the percentages you threw out on ECF’s who supported a certain doctrine are interesting. Do you have a source for such a claim, or did you make them up out of thin air? Furthermore, you make an argument from silence, which is illogical. The mere fact that every Father did not discuss certain doctrinal truths does not mean that they didn’t believe them. Surely that is not your argument? The only reason the writings were out there was to correct false interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. Thus, you will not see a great deal of writing on a subject unless it came under a great deal of scrutiny at the time. The fact that we don’t see this could just as easily be a positive sign for Catholics as a negative one. That is, if you want to make an argument from silence.
 
What? I have not seen one legitimate quote contradicting a Marian doctrine posted yet. How do you come to this conclusion?
Click to expand...
We have all been waiting for those quotes. The only objection quotes I can find are the modern protestant ones.

Possibly the early protestant fathers? 😉

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Redbandito said:
How? Please make a logical argument as to why a doctrine must have no objectors in order to be based on tradition. I don’t see why this is necessary in the slightest. Again, the ECF’s were witnesses to the Apostolic Tradition, not Tradition itself.
Click to expand...
The question is not" who objects?" but rather " who actually consents? "
CC
 
Apply the same logic to the trinity. Having used Iranaeus in 189 A.D. as your base of arguement earlier. The trinity wasn’t addressed formally until Tertullian 200 A.D, Then Athanasius later.

By the same logic, sinse it isn’t mentioned specifically by the fathers (unanimous concent as erroniously being applied to tradition instead of scriptural interpretation) it must be a false doctrine by the absence of literature from the early catholic fathers.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
I think we can probably all agree that certain Fathers consenting to a doctrine weigh more than others. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr give us, early on, the seed from which a couple of Marian doctrines could grow. In Against Heresies he states, “It was right and necessary that Adam be restored in Christ…that Eve be restored in Mary, so that a Virgin, become advocate of a virgin, might erase and abolish the disobedience of a virgin by her obedience as Virgin.” In reflecting on Mary as the New Eve, along with certain passages of Scripture (Gen 3, Lk 1), the Church was able to discern the truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Thus, the roots of Mary’s perfect obedience have already been in discussion by this time.

Tertullian expands upon this concept as well: “It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

Ephraim the Syrian talks about this thought more clearly: “You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

It starts to get more clear with St. Ambrose: “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

One of the greatest theologians of all time, Augustine, had this to say: “Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

And again with Theodotus: “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

Or how about this? “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

So, in response to your claim that there is virtually no evidence to suggest Mary was sinless, I say bologna. I think there is a great deal of evidence in the pre-Nicene through the post-Nicene Fathers that Mary was indeed understood as sinless. It is true that we don’t have a lot written on the topic. Yet, I believe that is a good thing. In the Early Church, they had all they could handle to hold to the orthodox teachings on Christ’s nature and the Trinity. As we got that under control, we were able to reflect more on other parts of the Scriptures revealed to us, and gained better understandings there as well. This is called the development of doctrine, not the invention of it. If you can’t see the roots of the Immaculate Conception in Mary as the “New Eve,” then I suggest you take it to prayer. Let God reveal it to you. God bless!
 
Here is another curious one. Do evangelicals believe in the Hypostatic union?

Please provide the unanimous concent (again using the evangelical arguement and definition) of the early catholic fathers. Ante Nicene Fathers preferred please.

If not, accordingly it must be a false doctrine, correct?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Nicene said:
Evangelicals need a sign, but none will be given to this generation. All things needs to be seen to be believed (written down) all (false) miracles grandioce and gaudy in front of oohhing and aaahing crowds. There is no authentic faith for those who can only believe by seeing and in desperate need of signs.

Would evangelical protestants actually have been one of the first christians? The absolute need for it to be written down in a legal document (in the form of scripture and how it is treated) would have precluded that conversion. Evangelicals claim to be like the first christians (their traditions not to be found regardless), yet the first christians believed without one word written down. Yet the protestant insistance is that it MUST be written down in order to be believed. Ergo they would not have converted sinse it was not written down. Isn’t that actually a false faith?

I am often remided of:

Jn 5:39: You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
40: yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
Evangelicals don’t need a sign. Scripture is our source of authority over all faith and practice. And Scripture says it was the Jews who need a sign.

As for needing things to be written down, well we are just following Scripture. Acts says to search the Scriptures and see if what you are being told is so. Why would a good God give us a Bible if it didn’t contain all that we needed, especially when it claims to do so?:confused:

The early Christians most likely would have been Protestant because they rejected the Pharisees way of rules and traditions. They went to Jesus and received life, the same way all of us Protestants do. The reason they didn’t need everything written down was because Scripture hadn’t been completed yet! It has been completed for hundreds of years now though, unless you want to add to it? If Catholic Traditions are also “the Word of God” then go the full mile and WRITE them down in the book. :eek:

Jesus telling the Pharisees that they search the Scriptures in no way disproves Sola Scriptura. The problem was they thought they had eternal life in them whereas we don’t. We know we have eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord because the Scriptures testify of it.
 
Do evangelicals believe in the Hypostatic union?

Fully God, fully Man? Yep. Scripture teaches it.
 
hoosierdaddy said:
The early Christians most likely would have been Protestant because they rejected the Pharisees way of rules and traditions. They went to Jesus and received life, the same way all of us Protestants do. The reason they didn’t need everything written down was because Scripture hadn’t been completed yet!
Click to expand...
So that proves that the early Christians had to be Catholic. If the Bible wasn’t written down yet, they were following the Tradition of the Church, which is Catholic.
 
Hoosierdaddy,

How could the early Christians have been Protestants or Sola Scripturists, since they had no New Testament? They were taught by WORD OF MOUTH (and remember, most people were illiterate and the lack of printing presses meant books were expensive). The Apostles wrote letters to correct error or to clarify doctrine, and they usually their letters were written to a specific audience, not the entire Christian World. Even after they were written, it was decades before any attempt to define a “New Testament” was made, and it took a couple centuries before the canon was settled.
 
hoosierdaddy said:
Do evangelicals believe in the Hypostatic union?

Fully God, fully Man? Yep. Scripture teaches it.
Click to expand...
Funny, I have never read the word Hypostacis in the bible. Can you point it out for us?

Lets test the evangelical belief in hypostasis and that of the trinity. On the cross Jesus says:

Mt 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

And the evangelical belief and doctrine is?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
lak611 said:
So that proves that the early Christians had to be Catholic. If the Bible wasn’t written down yet, they were following the Tradition of the Church, which is Catholic.
Click to expand...
Nope. It proves they were Christians.
 
RNRobert said:
Hoosierdaddy,

How could the early Christians have been Protestants or Sola Scripturists, since they had no New Testament? They were taught by WORD OF MOUTH (and remember, most people were illiterate and the lack of printing presses meant books were expensive). The Apostles wrote letters to correct error or to clarify doctrine, and they usually their letters were written to a specific audience, not the entire Christian World. Even after they were written, it was decades before any attempt to define a “New Testament” was made, and it took a couple centuries before the canon was settled.
Click to expand...
But it doesn’t matter that it was taught by word of mouth. The fact is that NOW…it is all written down. Anything that God wants us to know is written down in the Bible. I didn’t say the early Christians were Protestants; I said they would have been. If you understand what Protestants believe you’d agree 100% that the early Christians would have been in fact, Protestants.

As for the letters being written TO a certain audience, that is true. However, ALL Scripture is inspired by God…and thus is written FOR all Christians. God bless.
 
Nicene said:
Funny, I have never read the word Hypostacis in the bible. Can you point it out for us?

Lets test the evangelical belief in hypostasis and that of the trinity. On the cross Jesus says:

Mt 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

And the evangelical belief and doctrine is?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
Do you remember the verse about not casting your pearls before swine? I am applying this. You are just causing trouble. Good day. P.S. spend less time causing trouble and more time studying your Bible. You’ll see that it does in fact teach that Jesus is fully God and fully Man. What it doesn’t teach though is Mary being God. Touche.
 
Oh almost forgot. Your collegue’s contention is that if it isn’t the unanimous concent of the early fathers in their written documents then it is a false doctrine.

So possibly you will take up the mantle and give us the ante nicene fathers quotes on the hypostatic union?

Again your collegue’s contention is, if it isn’t there it is false. Would you care to help prove him right? (I’ll limit you to the hypostatic union sinse that is where you jumped in).

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Maybe I missed this answer already, but what in the world does the Bishop of Rome have to do with the definition of “Catholic.” Since when has being “Catholic” had anything to do with ones’ connection to the Vatican. What is more important: persuing Truth, or finding ones’ way into communion with Rome? For surely it is that church which proclaims Truth and guards the treasury of the truth that is truly Catholic.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top