The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[Redbandito]

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

Quite the false dichotomy. For surely it is the one who stands in communcion with Rome that has access to the complete Truth which is Catholic.

 

[Alexius]

Quite the false dichotomy. For surely it is the one who stands in communcion with Rome that has access to the complete Truth which is Catholic.

Upon what basis? My point was simply that the traditional term Catholic, as used by the early Church, had little to do with the pope or Rome or anywhere else in particular. It had to do with the Truth of Christ’s message delivered to the Church established by Christ and spread across Europe, Asia, and Africa. That is the proper Catholic Church; that which has always been received and taught from the Christ (to paraphrase St. Vincent of Lerins).

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I think we can probably all agree that certain Fathers consenting to a doctrine weigh more than others.

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!

Hey, thanks for actually responding to my questions or conclusions, rather than attacking me for asking. I was beginning to wonder if this site should be called Catholic Diatribes or Catholic Ad Hominems, rather than Catholic Answers.

As you can see from my comments above, I hadn’t ruled out some of the Fathers opining on the sinlessness issue; rather, I just hadn’t received any information from the Fathers for this issue until now. Thanks.

Please note that calling Mary the “new Eve”, an interesting analogy, is not the same as claiming that she was sinless. You have provided 3-4 clear references from the Fathers (of the 68 in total) who consent to her being sinless. You are aware, from my citations above, that there are more than this number of Fathers that consent to her *not *being sinless. Why believe “your” Fathers and not “mine” on this issue?

Many from this site have suddenly become experts on the 4th session of Trent and what they meant by “unanimous consent”. I have learnt that “unanimous consent” was never meant to mean “unanimous consent”, although there was no “unanimous consent” from posters above as to what that phrase actually means!

But let’s put Trent aside for now: the most elucidating fact of the above discussion for me has been how little “consent” there really is from the Fathers for many Marian doctrines. There are 68 Fathers according to New Advent, a Roman Catholic website. Few of these Fathers consent to any of the specific Marian doctrines and dogma I have inquired about. On the Assumption, for example, I was surprised that NO Father consented to this. The most we could find for any doctrine was 11 of the 68, or 16%.

There are perhaps many possible explanations for this. Well, maybe most of the Fathers’ documents with Marian references were lost? Unlikely.

Logically, there are only two plausible conclusions regarding the overwhelming silence of the Fathers regarding Marian dogma and doctrines:

1. They believed them, but didn’t think them important. In which case, why should we? However, I and others have cited examples where they clearly didn’t believe them and felt it important enough to consent to this. So that doesn’t seem likely; Alternatively,
2. They didn’t believe them

In either case, the case for Marian dogma and doctrine based on the consent of the Fathers is undeniably weak. I look forward to exploring the case for Marian dogma and doctrine based on Scripture, perhaps in another thread.

To return to the original argument of this thread, what the evidence from the Fathers suggests is that there is little support (i.e. consent) for modern RC Marian dogma and doctrines. That these ideas entered the Church later through tradition is not in doubt. But the “catholic but not Roman Catholic” argument stands.

 

[Redbandito]

Logically, there are only two plausible conclusions regarding the overwhelming silence of the Fathers regarding Marian dogma and doctrines:

1. They believed them, but didn’t think them important. In which case, why should we? However, I and others have cited examples where they clearly didn’t believe them and felt it important enough to consent to this. So that doesn’t seem likely; Alternatively,
2. They didn’t believe them

In either case, the case for Marian dogma and doctrine based on the consent of the Fathers is undeniably weak. I look forward to exploring the case for Marian dogma and doctrine based on Scripture, perhaps in another thread.

To return to the original argument of this thread, what the evidence from the Fathers suggests is that there is little support (i.e. consent) for modern RC Marian dogma and doctrines. That these ideas entered the Church later through tradition is not in doubt. But the “catholic but not Roman Catholic” argument stands.

Actually, you left out a third here.

3). The Marian doctrines were all so widely believed and unquestioned, there was no need for clarification. Thus, the small amount of, yet clear references to, Marian doctrine.

And again, your final paragraph is merely an argument from silence. You arguing that there was not a lot of writing on the subject, thus it was either not believed or important, is absolutely NOT a logical conclusion.

This logical error is simply due to poor philosophy. An argumentum a silentio, (or argument from silence) is a generalization made based on lack of evidence for the contrary. It’s like saying nobody stated the sky was not pink in 25 AD, so they must not have believed it. That assertion is, of course, ridiculous. Thus, an argument from silence is not a logical, or strong, argument whatsoever.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Logically, there are only two plausible conclusions regarding the overwhelming silence of the Fathers regarding Marian dogma and doctrines:

1. They believed them, but didn’t think them important. In which case, why should we? However, I and others have cited examples where they clearly didn’t believe them and felt it important enough to consent to this. So that doesn’t seem likely; Alternatively,
2. They didn’t believe them
   /QUOTE]

Understanding of what is important can vary. For instance St Paul hardly mentions Jesus’ ministry. If you’ve ever had the experince of debating Jesus Mythers you’ll know how much they make of this. He didn’t regard the ministry as very important, but we, more distant from Jesus, do see the ministry as of very great importance.

Similarly with Marian doctrines. What is important depends on your circumstances. I’ve got a few bits of left-over lunch in my bag; I can’t even remember exactly what I have eaten and what I still have. If I was caught in a snowdrift, that food would suddenly become my most important possession.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Actually, you left out a third here.

3). The Marian doctrines were all so widely believed and unquestioned, there was no need for clarification. Thus, the small amount of, yet clear references to, Marian doctrine.

And again, your final paragraph is merely an argument from silence. You arguing that there was not a lot of writing on the subject, thus it was either not believed or important, is absolutely NOT a logical conclusion.

This logical error is simply due to poor philosophy. An argumentum a silentio, (or argument from silence) is a generalization made based on lack of evidence for the contrary. It’s like saying nobody stated the sky was not pink in 25 AD, so they must not have believed it. That assertion is, of course, ridiculous. Thus, an argument from silence is not a logical, or strong, argument whatsoever.

This is a possibility, but not a plausible. The documents of the Fathers are a wide variety of sermons, theological tracts, histories, corrections against heresy, and at times personal reflections. There is a huge number of documents from these 68 Fathers, as can be seen here: newadvent.org/fathers/ These are the most important Christian documents of the first 4 centuries covering a huge gamut of topics.

Is it plausible that they were all in agreement that, for example, Mary was assumed to heaven in the 1st century, an extraordinary historical event for the Church if it happened, and that this was so obvious that it need not be mentioned? Was this so obvious? The analogy with the sky, which we see every day, is patently a category comparison fallacy and is not valid.

Could the modern Roman Catholic church take the same position: no writing about the Assumption for the next 400 years? Absolutely not.

 

[Redbandito]

Hey, thanks for actually responding to my questions or conclusions, rather than attacking me for asking. I was beginning to wonder if this site should be called Catholic Diatribes or Catholic Ad Hominems, rather than Catholic Answers.

You’re welcome. That is what this site is for. Unfortunately, the subject gets emotional for many people on both sides, and we lose the forest for the trees. Nevertheless, I am glad to respond, and hope we can get somewhere.

As you can see from my comments above, I hadn’t ruled out some of the Fathers opining on the sinlessness issue; rather, I just hadn’t received any information from the Fathers for this issue until now. Thanks.

Well, I only gave you a few quotes. If you would like more, I would be glad to provide them.

Please note that calling Mary the “new Eve”, an interesting analogy, is not the same as claiming that she was sinless. You have provided 3-4 clear references from the Fathers (of the 68 in total) who consent to her being sinless. You are aware, from my citations above, that there are more than this number of Fathers that consent to her *not *being sinless. Why believe “your” Fathers and not “mine” on this issue?

Actually, I am not aware of this. I am going to have to see the citations again. I went through all of myfavoritemartin’s citations and did not see any that seemed to even implicitly support his opinion. I responded to each of them above, so if you have questions about which ones, read the last 2-3 pages. I will attempt to go find where you cited the “number of Fathers” that believe Mary sinned.

As for the “interesting analogy” of the “New Eve,” what do you think they are saying? In what way was Mary the “New Eve?” How does Mary, a sinful woman, undo what Eve, a sinless women, did? Isn’t the analogy very clear? They were both created in a state of grace. One brought death through disobedience. The other brought life through obedience. How does this analogy make sense if three of the four people in the analogy were created sinless, yet the other was not? Christ being the New Adam was surely sinless. How is the New Eve not? And if so, what implications does this have on the analogy? It seems to me, that logical consistency mandates such an understanding. And although this is implicit in the teaching, not explicit, it certainly gives us a solid theological basis for claiming Mary’s Immuculate Conception.

As far as trying to make a judgment of doctrine based on how many Church Fathers of the 68 talked about said doctrines, I have already addressed this. You assume that the fact that a Father does not have explicit, or even implicit, discussions on a subject means that they either did not believe such a doctrine, or they did not feel it was important. The first conclusion is obviously illogical. One cannot logically make such an argument from silence, as addressed above. And as far as your statement that some of them did not think it was important, that is completely okay with me. It’s an unprovable assertion, but it’s okay. What is provable is that some clearly thought it was important enough to mention.

The fact that a theologian stressed more time on the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ’s nature, is perfectly okay with me. The Church had not formally defined the Marian doctrines at this time. And truthfully, Mary’s sinlessness, while extremely important, does take a backseat to the definition of the Trinity, in my opinion. Thus, this does not disprove the need for such doctrines. It just shows that God has allowed us to have more thorough understanding of his once and for all revealed truth, through prayer and meditation on this truth over time. It also showed that the battlefields at that time were not over Mary’s nature, but Christ’s.

Many from this site have suddenly become experts on the 4th session of Trent and what they meant by “unanimous consent”. I have learnt that “unanimous consent” was never meant to mean “unanimous consent”, although there was no “unanimous consent” from posters above as to what that phrase actually means!

This is a red herring, isn’t it? What people on here agree to, or don’t agree to, is of little consequence as to what Trent actually meant. Read theologians, or Catholic historians on the issue. I linked Steve Ray’s article. Did you read it? Because it seems like this post contradicts the tone you took earlier. You started with the “has to be all the Fathers” tone, changed to “just show me any” tone, and now it’s back to the “has to be all the Fathers” tone.

 

[Redbandito]

But let’s put Trent aside for now: the most elucidating fact of the above discussion for me has been how little “consent” there really is from the Fathers for many Marian doctrines. There are 68 Fathers according to New Advent, a Roman Catholic website. Few of these Fathers consent to any of the specific Marian doctrines and dogma I have inquired about. On the Assumption, for example, I was surprised that NO Father consented to this. The most we could find for any doctrine was 11 of the 68, or 16%.

J4M. These were some of the most renowned Fathers in the history of the Church. I gave you a quote of two here or there on the Immaculate Conception/Mary’s sinlessness. If you would like me to go into more depth with quotes on this doctrine, I would be happy to.

As for other Marian doctrines, we have not even yet investigated them. If you want to do so, fine. However, I am going to have to ask you to stick to one topic at a time.

And finally, you again falsely assert that “few of these Fathers consent to any of the specific Marian doctrines and dogma.” Again, where did you get this notion? Not writing about something and disbelieving in that thing are two completely different scenarios. You can see that, can’t you?

And as far as your percentage on different doctrines, I believe that is irrelevant. The more important thing from your position is to show the Fathers who explicitly disagreed. You claim you have done so. That has yet to be seen. I will go check up on your previous citations.

There are perhaps many possible explanations for this. Well, maybe most of the Fathers’ documents with Marian references were lost? Unlikely.

Actually, most of the Fathers’ documents, period, were probably lost. That would not come as much of a surprise, would it?

 

[Redbandito]

This is a possibility, but not a plausible. The documents of the Fathers are a wide variety of sermons, theological tracts, histories, corrections against heresy, and at times personal reflections. There is a huge number of documents from these 68 Fathers, as can be seen here: newadvent.org/fathers/ These are the most important Christian documents of the first 4 centuries covering a huge gamut of topics.

Is it plausible that they were all in agreement that, for example, Mary was assumed to heaven in the 1st century, an extraordinary historical event for the Church if it happened, and that this was so obvious that it need not be mentioned? Was this so obvious? The analogy with the sky, which we see every day, is patently a category comparison fallacy and is not valid.

Could the modern Roman Catholic church take the same position: no writing about the Assumption for the next 400 years? Absolutely not.

Actually, it’s entirely plausible. What you seem to miss is that these writings of the Early Fathers are almost entirely writings on correction. Thus, when Irenaeus writes Against Heresies, he is combating the thought in error of the time.

Justin Martyr’s First Apology was just that, a defense of. Thus, the fact that there were not 68 Fathers writing on the subject at the time on the subject of Mary could be explained just as plausibly by the fact that this was not in debate.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

J4M. These were some of the most renowned Fathers in the history of the Church. I gave you a quote of two here or there on the Immaculate Conception/Mary’s sinlessness. If you would like me to go into more depth with quotes on this doctrine, I would be happy to.

As for other Marian doctrines, we have not even yet investigated them. If you want to do so, fine. However, I am going to have to ask you to stick to one topic at a time.

We have investigated them above. Mannyfit listed many pages of citations. If you have more, I would welcome them.

And finally, you again falsely assert that “few of these Fathers consent to any of the specific Marian doctrines and dogma.” Again, where did you get this notion?

I have shown in some detail the methodology I used. My assertion is not false, unless you can show me more evidence of their consent. I said “consent”, not “belief”. You can see that can’t you?

Not writing about something and disbelieving in that thing are two completely different scenarios. You can see that, can’t you?

Yes I can see that, but possibility is not plausibility. Is it possible that those top 68 Christian authors would be silent on an historical event such as the resurrection? Yes, it is possible. It is possible that the top 68 Christian authors of the first 4 centuries would be silent on an historical event of significance for the Church such as the Assumption? Also possible. But in both cases not plausible.

So their silence is important.

And as far as your percentage on different doctrines, I believe that is irrelevant. The more important thing from your position is to show the Fathers who explicitly disagreed. You claim you have done so. That has yet to be seen. I will go check up on your previous citations.

Go check. I don’t know if I got them all on either side.

I disagree on “disagreement”. The RC church claims that the Magisterium accords with Scripture and Tradition. If the consent from the Fathers for Marian doctrine is weak, then the arguments from Scripture must be very strong indeed. I look forward to discussing these strong arguments from Scripture for, for example, The Assumption. Frankly, after having searched the Scriptures, I don’t see it.

But moreover, I think the Fathers are extremely important in helping us interpret those passages of the Scripture that are sometimes not clear. The RC agrees (although there is a material sufficiency debate raging in the RC church today, and post Vatican II, whether Scripture and Tradition are two sources or really one.) However, on the Assumption, for example, there is absolutely no support from the Fathers to help us interpret Scripture. None, because they don’t mention it.

So it is not just disagreement that is important. The lack of consent is also important.

Actually, most of the Fathers’ documents, period, were probably lost. That would not come as much of a surprise, would it?

No it does not(, although many formerly lost documents have now been found, such as the Didache and Epistle of Barnabas. These two dont’ support Marian dogma either).
But it would come as a surprise if you claim that those documents lost were all the Marian documents showing consent for, for example, the Assumption. Perhaps the Holy Spirit was guiding their loss? Just kidding.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Nope. It proves they were Christians.

Correct, hoosierdaddy, Christians who LISTENED to the Gospel, met on the “Lord’s Day” even though it was NOT in Jewish scripture (the Tanakh), who may or may have not been Jewish, who were Greeks or were “godfearers” who followed the monotheism of the Jews but were not circumcised (and thus considered ‘unclean’ by Jewish law), who took the body and blood of Christ literally like He taught us in John (3 times repeating it, no less!) and as other early Christian writers and followers wrote about in scrolls and codices not part of the later canon.

These were men and women from all social and economic backgrounds, all ethnicities and religious traditions.

But they were an ekklesia, an “assembly” or what we now call a Church, of believers in Jesus as the Savior for ALL mankind and not just for Jews (an argument St Paul has to remind some of those “Hebrews” and “Romans”).

Thus, they were ‘catholic,’ universal in belief and in communion with one another regardless of prior cultural or political or religious differences.

And this catholic ekklesia is what we call the Catholic Church or the Church today.

Correct, hoosierdaddy, so correct.

Pax Christi

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I have shown in some detail the methodology I used. My assertion is not false, unless you can show me more evidence of their consent. I said “consent”, not “belief”. You can see that can’t you?

Jesus4Madrid:

I see you are still pushing your bogus “methodology” for Fatima? :banghead:

Your assertion IS false because your premise is false:

The Catholic Church has NEVER used ‘Father’ (more on that misuse of yours later) “unanimous consent” on anything other than “Scriptural interpretation.”

“Consent” has NOTHING to do with whether or not the Church thinks ANYTHING about Fatima or any other Marian apparition.

Boy, I’m beginning to think you suffer from a fundamental perceptual handicap, my friend.

Get over it. Your soi-disant “proof” is off-point, irrelevant, juvenile and without merit.

And that’s being charitable.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Jesus4Madrid:

I see you are still pushing your bogus “methodology” for Fatima? :banghead:

Your assertion IS false because your premise is false:

The Catholic Church has NEVER used ‘Father’ (more on that misuse of yours later) “unanimous consent” on anything other than “Scriptural interpretation.”

“Consent” has NOTHING to do with whether or not the Church thinks ANYTHING about Fatima or any other Marian apparition.

Have you read my last few threads? Let me help you:

Many from this site have suddenly become experts on the 4th session of Trent and what they meant by “unanimous consent”. I have learnt that “unanimous consent” was never meant to mean “unanimous consent”, although there was no “unanimous consent” from posters above as to what that phrase actually means!

But let’s put Trent aside for now: the most elucidating fact of the above discussion for me has been how little “consent” there really is from the Fathers for many Marian doctrines.

I am not speaking about Trent or “unanimous consent”. Although it is an interesting subject. Are you a Trent expert also?

By the way, I haven’t ever mentioned Fatima. Find a mention of the word “Fatima” by me on any Catholic Answers thread and I will convert now (if you will have me).

Boy, I’m beginning to think you suffer from a fundamental perceptual handicap, my friend.

Get over it. Your soi-disant “proof” is off-point, irrelevant, juvenile and without merit.

And that’s being charitable.

I must be getting close to something here. Because I notice that when the RC arguments on Catholic Answers get shaky, the insults and ad hominems get vicious.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Jonathan>>

Thus, they were ‘catholic,’ universal in belief and in communion with one another regardless of prior cultural or political or religious differences.

And this catholic ekklesia is what we call the Catholic Church or the Church today.

Correct, hoosierdaddy, so correct

**So you admit that we protestants are “catholic” then as well? As we are part of the universal Church all united in Christ irregardless of prior cultural, political, or religious differences. In fact, irregardless of present differences. We are still part of the ekklesia. Thank you, I thought I was spot on. **

 

[Redbandito]

We have investigated them above. Mannyfit listed many pages of citations. If you have more, I would welcome them…

Well, if Manny covered all of them, great.

I have shown in some detail the methodology I used. My assertion is not false, unless you can show me more evidence of their consent. I said “consent”, not “belief”. You can see that can’t you?.

Show me where consent=explicit writing on.
Main Entry: 1con·sent [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?consen03.wav=consent’))
Pronunciation: k&n-'sent
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French consentir, from Latin consentire, from com- + sentire to feel – more at SENSE
1 : to give assent or approval : AGREE <consent to being tested>
2 archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment
Main Entry: 2consent
Function: noun
1 : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another : ACQUIESCENCE <he shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties – U.S. Constitution>
2 : agreement as to action or opinion; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to the government

The dictionary does not seem to suggest that one must go and pronounce belief in order to show consent. Agreement on=Consent. Thus, you are trying to force this superficial definition of consent down everyone’s throats. I tried to avoid going down this road, but you keep pushing it.

Yes I can see that, but possibility is not plausibility. Is it possible that those top 68 Christian authors would be silent on an historical event such as the resurrection? Yes, it is possible. It is possible that the top 68 Christian authors of the first 4 centuries would be silent on an historical event of significance for the Church such as the Assumption? Also possible. But in both cases not plausible.

So their silence is important. .

Well, not really. It’s not like the topic hadn’t been touched. Fathers talked about it. It simply wasn’t the foremost priority as they struggled against pagan Rome and the Jews for their very existence. The key was to get the Trinity and nature of Christ, which ironically led to the definition of our first Marian doctrine. So, in opposition to the claim that the 68 Christian authors were “silent” for 4 centuries, which we both know is untrue, I state that Marian doctrines were discussed but were not the** primary focus** (except when they were specifically applicable to an argument of Christ’s nature).

I disagree on “disagreement”. The RC church claims that the Magisterium accords with Scripture and Tradition. If the consent from the Fathers for Marian doctrine is weak, then the arguments from Scripture must be very strong indeed. I look forward to discussing these strong arguments from Scripture for, for example, The Assumption. Frankly, after having searched the Scriptures, I don’t see it. .

Please read Scott Hahn’s “Letter and Spirit.” You wrongly equate Tradition with the Church Fathers. While the Church Fathers were witnesses to Tradition, they are NOT Tradition.

But moreover, I think the Fathers are extremely important in helping us interpret those passages of the Scripture that are sometimes not clear. The RC agrees (although there is a material sufficiency debate raging in the RC church today, and post Vatican II, whether Scripture and Tradition are two sources or really one.) However, on the Assumption, for example, there is absolutely no support from the Fathers to help us interpret Scripture. None, because they don’t mention it. .

Stay on one topic at a time please. If you want to discuss the Assumption, we will go there. However, we will leave this discussion in an absolute mess if you won’t stick with one topic at a time.

No it does not(, although many formerly lost documents have now been found, such as the Didache and Epistle of Barnabas. These two dont’ support Marian dogma either). But it would come as a surprise if you claim that those documents lost were all the Marian documents showing consent for, for example, the Assumption. Perhaps the Holy Spirit was guiding their loss? Just kidding.

Perhaps. Or perhaps Satan knew if he could do away with such documents, he could lead souls away from Christ’s Church.

 

[Redbandito]

Jonathan>>
**So you admit that we protestants are “catholic” then as well? As we are part of the universal Church all united in Christ irregardless of prior cultural, political, or religious differences. In fact, irregardless of present differences. We are still part of the ekklesia. Thank you, I thought I was spot on. **

In some sense, yes. Just in a less complete way.

 

[Redbandito]

I must be getting close to something here. Because I notice that when the RC arguments on Catholic Answers get shaky, the insults and ad hominems get vicious.

The irony of this statement is thick. So you state that Catholics start attacking you when their arguments get shaky, meanwhile you prove this by attacking Catholics. Please focus on the facts, and leave the insults alone.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Show me where consent=explicit writing on.
Main Entry: 1con·sent [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?consen03.wav=consent’))
Pronunciation: k&n-'sent
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French consentir, from Latin consentire, from com- + sentire to feel – more at SENSE
1 : to give assent or approval : AGREE <consent to being tested>
2 archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment
Main Entry: 2consent
Function: noun
1 : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another : ACQUIESCENCE <he shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties – U.S. Constitution>
2 : agreement as to action or opinion; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to the government

The dictionary does not seem to suggest that one must go and pronounce belief in order to show consent. Agreement on=Consent. Thus, you are trying to force this superficial definition of consent down everyone’s throats. I tried to avoid going down this road, but you keep pushing it.

Great. If the commonsense definition of consent doesn’t prove the case, well…, let’s redefine consent. Why not? I have now heard about 10 different definitions of “consent”.

OK, including both (i) approval and (ii) acquiescence, show me unanimous consent of the Fathers for Marian doctrines. Start with the Assumption. Show that at least one Father (or even one Apostle) gave his consent (because, without this, there cannot be acquiescence) and then I will grant you that the silence of the remaining 67 Fathers really means that they are acquiescing. I am really making this easy on you now.

Well, not really. It’s not like the topic hadn’t been touched. Fathers talked about it. It simply wasn’t the foremost priority as they struggled against pagan Rome and the Jews for their very existence. The key was to get the Trinity and nature of Christ, which ironically led to the definition of our first Marian doctrine. So

,

Let’s take the Assumption as an example. The Fathers didn’t talk about it.

Are you suggesting that a doctrine such as the Assumption was always there, always part of the Early Church, accepted by the 68 Fathers and it was such a non issue that they were silent and that their silence actually shows that they were acquiescing to this and thus they actually consented to this?

Frankly, I don’t think this is plausible. I don’t think it is reasonable at all to claim that these 68 Christian authors spanning 3 centuries were so completely overwhelmed by the issue of the trinity that they left out of all their documentation the mere mention of the Assumption of Mary. Have you read the ECF? They talk of some of the most mundane issues one can imagine (take the Didache for example: how to treat prophets, how many days to fast before baptism). So they seem to have had time to mention these mundane topics. Yet they couldn’t even mention that the Mother of Jesus Christ was bodily assummed to heaven? Sorry, this is not reasonable.

in opposition to the claim that the 68 Christian authors were “silent” for 4 centuries, which we both know is untrue

, The 68 Fathers were silent for 4 centuries about the Assumption. Show me they weren’t.

Stay on one topic at a time please. If you want to discuss the Assumption, we will go there. However, we will leave this discussion in an absolute mess if you won’t stick with one topic at a time.

Let’s use the Assumption as a case example for the larger issue of lack of consent (opps, now a meaningless word), I mean written approaval, of Marian dogma. Leave aside the Trent debate about consent. Present me the case from tradition for the Assumption. Use any of the 68 Fathers listed previously by New Advent to make your case.

 

[Redbandito]

Great. If the commonsense definition of consent doesn’t prove the case, well…, let’s redefine consent. Why not? I have now heard about 10 different definitions of “consent”.

OK, including both (i) approval and (ii) acquiescence, show me unanimous consent of the Fathers for Marian doctrines. Start with the Assumption. Show that at least one Father (or even one Apostle) gave his consent (because, without this, there cannot be acquiescence) and then I will grant you that the silence of the remaining 67 Fathers really means that they are acquiescing. I am really making this easy on you now.

,

Let’s take the Assumption as an example. The Fathers didn’t talk about it.

Are you suggesting that a doctrine such as the Assumption was always there, always part of the Early Church, accepted by the 68 Fathers and it was such a non issue that they were silent and that their silence actually shows that they were acquiescing to this and thus they actually consented to this?

Frankly, I don’t think this is plausible. I don’t think it is reasonable at all to claim that these 68 Christian authors spanning 3 centuries were so completely overwhelmed by the issue of the trinity that they left out of all their documentation the mere mention of the Assumption of Mary. Have you read the ECF? They talk of some of the most mundane issues one can imagine (take the Didache for example: how to treat prophets, how many days to fast before baptism). So they seem to have had time to mention these mundane topics. Yet they couldn’t even mention that the Mother of Jesus Christ was bodily assummed to heaven? Sorry, this is not reasonable.

, The 68 Fathers were silent for 4 centuries about the Assumption. Show me they weren’t.

Let’s use the Assumption as a case example for the larger issue of lack of consent (opps, now a meaningless word), I mean written approaval, of Marian dogma. Leave aside the Trent debate about consent. Present me the case from tradition for the Assumption. Use any of the 68 Fathers listed previously by New Advent to make your case.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Jonathan>>

**So you admit that we protestants are “catholic” then as well? As we are part of the universal Church all united in Christ irregardless of prior cultural, political, or religious differences. In fact, irregardless of present differences. We are still part of the ekklesia. Thank you, I thought I was spot on. **

Good try, hoosierdaddy, but a logical fallacy.

Those ‘protestants’ of the early centuries were Arians, Cathars (Albigensians), Nestorians, Gnostics.

What tradition YOU refer to as “protestant” is a creature of recent invention by Henry VIII, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, all the way through to Miller, EG White, Russell, the Rev Moon, et alii.

All those think THEY TOO know what is authentic Christianity like the early heretics.

You were not spot on, you attempted to justify your present (shared by many Protestants) views onto the early Church.

Our rites have changed. Our teachings (based on Scripture and Tradition) have not. You may mistake devotionals and sacramentals for dogma and sacraments, but we don’t And if someone who is Catholic does, then he or she is wrong too.

There was no “hidden” Protestant church of the centuries before the 1500s. There is no historical proof (oh, I know, we destroyed the records!!) and any assertion that “protestants” were ‘catholic’ in the sense of Catholics today is only an attempt to mollify your position.

Avoid the logical fallacies. If you do not thinks something we Catholics do or believe is correct or proper, then go to the Catholic source on it (like the papal bull on the IC) and read it and get your ‘complaints’ and ‘points’ out of there.

This might cut down on the digressions, hoosierdaddy.