The First 1500 Years Of Christianity Were Catholic

[O.S.Luke]

I was referring to the politics of Saxony, not the polity of the Church.

O+

 

[Monkey1976]

So when the same Irenaeus says that what the Apostles taught oral had then been recorded in Scripture is he telling us what the Living Tradition of the Church was at that time?

newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Keep reading:
"St. Irenaeus of Lyons:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

Or when Irenaeus says that the Eucharist consists of two realities is he giving the belief of the Church at that time?

newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

Once again, keep reading:
St. Irenaeus of Lyons:

He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

The “two realities” noted by St. Irenaeus are the “sensible” reality (it looks, tastes, and acts like bread and wine) and the Real reality (that it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord).

Or does Irenaeus only witness to the truth when he agrees with the modern Catholic view?

I have yet to see any of St. Irenaeus’ writings that disagree with the Church.

 

[Monkey1976]

Unfortunately there seems to be a double standard among some Catholic apologists when it comes to the church fathers. If a church father says something that is supportive of a Catholic position, he represents the views of the Church on that matter, whatever else he may have written that doesn’t agree.

Honestly, in many cases, it depends on the ECF being quoted. Origen and Tertullian attest faithfully to many distinctively Catholic doctrines, but we know that they both fell into heresy later in life. Therefore, we have to be careful when reading them.

However if a Protestant cites a church father, or even several, in support of a Protestant or non-Catholic view, then that church father is said not to be infallible and not to represent the views of the Church.

The issue with Protestants using the ECFs in support of their position is that the quotation is usually taken well out of context, and the remainder of that Father’s writings on the subject in question are ignored. Even more telling regarding the duplicity of some Protestant apologists is the fact that several distinctively Catholic doctrines are affirmed every single time they are mentioned by the faithful Early Fathers, yet these are passed off as being evidence of the “corruption” of the early Church.

 

[Dan-Man916]

So when the same Irenaeus says that what the Apostles taught oral had then been recorded in Scripture is he telling us what the Living Tradition of the Church was at that time?

newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Or when Irenaeus says that the Eucharist consists of two realities is he giving the belief of the Church at that time?

newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

Or does Irenaeus only witness to the truth when he agrees with the modern Catholic view?

There is nothing contrary to the Catholic faith in those statements.

 

[Radical]

What do you think the CCC says about Mary?

I think it says what it says in 963-975.

I had said: *…as such, I am looking for a precise description of the beliefs that have been allegedly held for 1500 years and that are distinctly RC (vs protestant). If you don’t think that there are any such beliefs then great….but I want to hear from someone who thinks that the OP is correct *

And you responded:

And I answered that your question is based on a false premise in the way you are asking it.

So obviously I will need to look elsewhere for a delineation of the evidence that the OP references.

I don’t know why you are assuming this.

b/c it demonstrates (to me) a certain double standard that you possess….a Protestant’s request for a delineation of the beliefs that a RC referenced is a bad thing, but the RCC’s production of a list of beliefs in a Catechism is a good thing. The matter is rather simple. An assertion was made concerning belief. As such, I am only looking for a clear description of the belief that made the church catholic for the first 1500. If such a description is not available, then the claim can’t be verified by evidence and is merely a dodgy opinion.

I am not an apologist. I am a catechist.

and I am a historian which is why I want some historical evidence….particularly when the OP claims the RC’s have such historical evidence with regard to their beliefs.

Apologetics is a nice endeavour, but I have found that the best way to approach these kinds of things is to engender an understanding of the premises that underly the Catholic faith Tradition. If consensus can be reached on this issue, then one can move to a discussion of understanding the “why’s” that you are asking.

I am not asking “whys”. I am asking “whats”. What distinct beliefs? What specific passages in scripture? What is the earliest historical evidence for the distinct belief? I want the beliefs to be specified (so that we can know what we are talking about) and then I want the evidence (so that the assertion can be evaluated). It is that simple.

You seem to be looking for some sort of proof texts.

Hopefully now you understand that I am looking for evidence…something that can be examined with a bit of objectivity.

Faith doesn’t work that way because faith is based in a relationship that synthesizes into expressions of belief based on that lived experience. It isn’t the other way around.

This sounds like it would be so subjective that it would be of no use in determining that validity of the OP’s assertion. It might be an interesting discussion, but it is not something that interests me at the moment. Cheers.

 

[Dan-Man916]

I think it says what it says in 963-975.

This is ridiculous. Anyone can read. What do you think it means. When you read something you internalize and interpret it.

This is nothing more than bogus proof text type of posts where someone simply spews bible verse references so that their interpretation and only theirs should be obvious to all.
Discussion occurs when one describes what they understand the reference means.

It might be an interesting discussion, but it is not something that interests me at the moment. Cheers.

At this point, neither do your posts. If you want this list, as a historian, you should already have them.

I don’t think your being entirely honest about your motives in this discussion.
As a historian, you would know better than to say any reference “means what it says”. You would know as a hsitorian that any text needs to be internalized and interpreted from within the framework that it is written. If you are a historian, you would already know and udnerstand this yet you don’t demosntrate this knowledge.
Interesting.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So when Irenaeus in the 2nd century said, “he who does not hold to the See of Peter, can He really believe that he is in the Church?” what, IYO, did he mean?

My opinion is you likely have never read Ireneaus and no very little about him…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Read Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical history from the 4th century. It is extant and can be found online. It clearly spells out the unanimous belief of the universal Church that is founded upon the Tradition of the Apostles and handed on to the Bishops that were appointed and laid hands upon in an unbroken succession.

Which of his beliefs? you realise his view on the; eucharist, canon, veneration of images and the trinity were different than current catholic doctrine, right.?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Unfortunately there seems to be a double standard among some Catholic apologists when it comes to the church fathers. If a church father says something that is supportive of a Catholic position, he represents the views of the Church on that matter, whatever else he may have written that doesn’t agree.

However if a Protestant cites a church father, or even several, in support of a Protestant or non-Catholic view, then that church father is said not to be infallible and not to represent the views of the Church.

Well that explains why it’s so difficult to nail down the definition for the “unanimous consent of the fathers”

 

[Radical]

If you want this list, as a historian, you should already have them.

Exactly, I have my resources. As such, I am rather certain that what the OP is really declaring is that:

*You, as a Protestant, must come to a realization that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, they were Catholic in belief. *(In this regard, you Protestants must grant the RC the right to categorize any variation between a very early belief and a current belief as merely a development as opposed to a man-made innovation. You must further grant that the development was divinely inspired on the basis that the RCC is the church that Christ established and that he promised to keep its doctrines pure. Finally, you must disregard the circularity that exists at this point.)

Do you ever once realize because this is so in which we have the historical evidence…. (In this regard, you Protestants must grant the RC the right to pick and choose which particular writings from the ECFs should be recognized as reflective of the early church’s belief and which should be recognized as merely the rogue opinion of an ECF. Further, since the RCC is the church that Christ established and since he promised to keep its doctrines pure, any problematic writing of any ECF that cannot be dismissed as a rogue opinion must be interpreted in a fashion that aligns it with modern RC teaching. As SyCarl would likely point out, you must disregard any double standard that is in play at this point.)

….as well as Scripture, that Christ did in fact establish the Catholic faith? (In this regard, because Christ did in fact establish the RCC and its infallible teaching authority, you Protestants must grant the RCC the right to explain the correct interpretation of any key passage so as to verify its authenticity and authority. Again, you must disregard any self-authentication and circularity that exists at this point.)

If I am forced to grant those concessions, then the OP is correct. If I am allowed to explore the evidence for myself, then it ain’t.

 

[Dan-Man916]

*. *(In this regard, you Protestants must grant the RC the right to categorize any variation between a very early belief and a current belief as merely a development as opposed to a man-made innovation. You must further grant that the development was divinely inspired on the basis that the RCC is the church that Christ established and that he promised to keep its doctrines pure. Finally, you must disregard the circularity that exists at this point.)

Well, at least you’re consistent in that the way you have described the situation is not what Catholics believe.
Of course, you come up with a conclusion that it is a circular argument. Your premise is flawed to begin with. It’s easy to knock something down when you have created a straw man argument.

You ignored what i previously said about interpreting and internalizing any text within the context of how the group who wrote them meant to express them.
I think that pretty much gives me the answer about your real purpose in this thread.

 

[Radical]

Well, at least you’re consistent in that the way you have described the situation is not what Catholics believe.

Oh really? You know, it should be so easy for you to prove me wrong on this. All you would have to do is show me the:

a) distinct Catholic beliefs that existed from the start and we could then see if they vary from existing beliefs (at that point, if necessary, you could proceed with interpreting and internalizing so as to show that any variation is a mere development).
b) the clear passages of scripture establishing those beliefs (at that point you could proceed with interpreting and internalizing so as to show that the RC interpretation is beyond question); and
c) the earliest evidence from ECFs showing that the beliefs existed from the start (at that point you could proceed with interpreting and internalizing so as to show that the RC categorization and interpretation is beyond question)

I think that pretty much gives me the answer about your real purpose in this thread.

My real purpose is to require the OPster to actually produce the evidence that he claims the RCC has to support his assertion. This should be obvious from my repeated requests. He doesn’t seem to want to produce the evidence. You can’t or won’t. If the fact was so patently obvious as the OP suggests, it should be very easy to produce that evidence.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Since I don’t know the OP, and the OP hasn’t returned, I can’t speak for that person.
However, what you want is covered rather exhaustively in a text called, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott, Tan Books.
This is a textbook on Systematic Theology. In it, he lists the dogmas, doctrine, common teachings, etc. of the Church, it’s foundation in Scripture and Tradition, its basis in the Magesterial teachings, and the errors opposed to it that were condemned.

The text is about 500 pages. Go study it, if you are truly interested in learning about the origins of Catholic teaching.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Because I’m a good sport, i’ll give you the listing. You can go read whichever topic tickles your fancy.

1. God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)
2. The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
3. God’s existence is not merely an object of natural rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith. (De fide.)
4. Our natural knowledge of God in this world is not as immediate, intuitive cognition, but a mediate, abstractive knowledge, because it is attained through the knowledge of creatures. (Sent. certa.)
5. Our knowledge of God here below is not proper (cognitio propia) but analogical (cognitio analoga or analogica.) (Sent. certa.)
6. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.)
7. The blessed in Heaven posses an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence. (De fide.)
8. The Immediate Vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural. (De fide.)
   9)The soul, for the Immediate Vision of God, requires the light of glory. (De fide. D 475.)
9. God’s Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven. (De fide.)
10. The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.)
11. God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
12. God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
13. God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
14. There is only One God. (De fide.)
15. The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
16. God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
17. God is absolute Veracity (De fide.)
18. God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
19. God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
20. God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782
21. God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
22. God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
23. God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
24. God is eternal. (De fide.)
25. God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
26. God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.)
27. God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
28. God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual
29. God’s knowledge is subsistent
30. God’s knowledge is comprehensive
    32)God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
31. The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
32. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
33. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
34. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
35. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
36. God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
37. God does not (per se) desire physical evil, for example suffering, illness, death, that is not for the sake of the evil or as an aim. However, God wills physical evil, natural evil as well as punitive evil, per accidens, that is, as a means to a higher end of the physical order.
38. God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)

 

[Dan-Man916]

1. God is almighty. (De fide.)
2. God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
3. God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
4. God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)
5. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence. (De fide.)
6. In God there are two Internal Divine Processions. (De fide.)
7. The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense). (De fide.)
8. The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father. (De fide.)
9. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)
10. The Son proceeds from the Intellect of the Father by way of Generation. (Sent. certa.)
11. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the will or from the mutuallove of the Father and of the Son. (Sent. certa.)
12. The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration. (De. fide.)
13. The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature. (De fide.)
14. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another. (De fide.)
15. All the ad extra Activities of God are common to that Three Persons. (De fide.)
16. The Father sends the Son: the Father and the Son send the Holy Ghost. (Sent. certa.)
17. The Trinity of God can only be known through Divine Revelation. (sent. fidei proxima.)
18. All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.)
19. The world is the work of the Divine Wisdom. (Sent. certa.)
20. God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De fide.)
21. The world created for the Glorification of God. (De fide.)
22. The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De fide.)
23. God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De fide.)
24. God was free to create this worrld or any other. (Sent. Certa.)
25. God has created a good world. (De fide.)
26. The world had a begining in time. (De fide.)
27. God alone created the World. (De fide.)
28. No Creature can, as Principal Cause (causa principalis) that is, from its own power, create something out of nothing. (Sent. communis.)
29. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
30. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
31. God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)
32. The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
33. The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
34. Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
35. The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
36. Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
37. Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
38. A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
39. The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
40. God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)

 

[Dan-Man916]

1. Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
2. The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   83)The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
3. The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
4. The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
5. Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
6. Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
7. Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
8. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788
9. Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
10. Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
11. Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
12. In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
13. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
14. In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing. (De fide.)
15. The nature of angels is spiritual. (De fide.)
16. The angels are by nature immortal. (Sent. communis.)
17. God set a supernatural final end for the angels, the immediate vision of God, and endowed them with sanctifying grace in order that they might achieve this end. (Sent. Certa.)
18. The angels were subjected to a moral testing. (Sent. certa. as regards the fallen angels, Sent. communis as regards the good.)
19. The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.
20. The primary task of the good angels is the glorification and the service of God. (Sent. certa.)
21. The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation. (De fide on the ground of general teaching.)
22. Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism. (Sent. certa.)
23. The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin. (De fide.)
24. Jesus Christ is the True God and True Son of God. (De fide.)
25. Christ assumed a real body, not an apparent body. (De fide.)
26. Christ assumed not only a body but also a rational soul. (De fide.)
27. Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary. (De fide.)
28. Christ is One Divine Person (De fide.)
29. The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person (De fide.)

 

[Dan-Man916]

1. Christ Incarnate is a single, that is, a sole Person. He is God and man at the same time.
2. The God-Logos is connected with the flesh by an inner, physical or substantial unification. Christ is not the bearer of God, but is God really.
3. The human and the divine activities predicated of Christ in Holy Write and in the Fathers may not be divided between two persons or hypostases, the Man-Christ and the God-Logos, but must be attributed to the one Christ, the Logos become Flesh. It is the Divine Logos, who suffered in the flesh, was crucified, died, and rose again.
4. The Holy Virgin is the Mother of God since she truly bore the God-Logos become Flesh.
5. In the Hypostatic Union each of the two natures of Christ continues unimpaired, untransformed and unmixed with the other. (De fide.)
6. Each of the two natures in Christ possesses its own natural will and its own natural mode of operation. (De fide.)
7. The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception. (De fide.)
8. The Hypostatic Union was never interrupted. (Sent. certa.)
9. The Hypostatic Union will never cease. (De fide.)
10. The Blood in the Living Body of Jesus Christ is an integral constituent part of human nature, immediately, not merely mediately, united with the Person of the Divine Logos. (Sent. certa.)
11. The Hypostatic Union was effected by the Three Divine Persons acting in common. (De fide.)
12. Only the Second Divine Person became Man. (De fide.)
13. Not only as God but also as man Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God. (De fide.)
14. The God-Man Jesus Christ is to be venerated with one single mode of Worship, the absolute Worship of Latria which is due to God alone. (De fide.)
15. Just as Latria is due to the whole Human nature of Christ, so is it due to the individual parts of His nature. (Sent. Certa.)
16. Christ’s Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. (De fide.)
17. The two natures of Christ exist in the closest union (Sent. communis.)
18. Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.)
19. Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Sent. certa.) D2184 et seq.
20. From the begining of Christ’s life, His soul possessed infused knowledge (scientia infusa). (Senta. communis.)
21. Christ’s soul possessed also an acquired knowledge or experimental knowledge (scientia acquisita, sc. experimentalis). (Sent. communis.)
22. Christ was free from all sin, from original sin as well as from all personal sin. (De fide.)
23. Christ has not merely not actually sinned, but also could not sin. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
24. By reason of the Hypostatic Union, Christ’s human nature, through the Uncreated Holiness of the Word, is substantially Holy. (Sent. communis.) Cf. Luke 1,35.
25. By reason of His endowment with the fullness of created habitual grace, Christ’s soul is also accidentally holy. (Sent. certa.)
26. Sanctifying Grace overflows from Christ, the Head, to the members of HIs mystical Body. (Sent. communis.)
27. Christ’s humanity, as instrument of the Logos, posesses the power of producing supernatural effects. (Sent. certa.)
28. Christ’s human nature was passible. (De fide.)
29. Christ’s soul was subject to sensual emotions. (Sent. certa.)
30. The Son of God became man in order to redeem men. (De fide.)

 

[Dan-Man916]

1. Fallen man cannot redeem himself. (De fide.)
2. God was not compelled to redeem mankind by either an internal or an external compulsion. (Sent. certa.)
3. Even on the presupposition of the Divine Resolve of Redemption, the Incarnation was not absolutely necessary. (Sent. communis.)
4. If God demanded a full atonement the Incarnation of a Divine Person was necessary. (Sent. communis.)
5. Christ is the Supreme Prophet promised in the Old Covenant and the absolute teacher of humanity. (Sent. certa.)
6. The God-Man Jesus Christ is a High Priest. (De fide.)
7. Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a true and proper sacrifice. (De fide.)
8. Christ by His Sacrifice on the Cross has ransomed us and reconciled us with God. (De fide.)
9. Christ, through His Suffering and Death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
10. Christ’s Vicarious Atonement is adequate or of full value, by reason of its intrinsic merit. (Sent. communior.)
11. Christ’s Vicarious Atonement is superabundant, that is, the positive value of the expiation is greater than the negative value of the sin. (Sent. communis.)
12. Christ did not die for the predestined only. (De fide.) Christ died not for the Faithful only, but for all mankind without exception. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
    153)Christ’s Atonement does not extend to the fallen angels.
13. Christ, through His Passion and Death, merited reward from God. (De fide.)
14. Christ merited for Himself the condition of exaltation (Resurrection, Transfiguration of the body, Ascension into Heaven). (Sent. certa.)
15. Christ merited all supernatural graces recieved by fallen mankind. (Sent. certa.)
16. After His Death, Christ’s soul, which was separated from His Body, descended into the underworld(hell,limbo of the Just, hades). (De fide.)
17. On the third day after His Death Christ rose gloriously from the dead. (De fide.)
18. Christ ascended Body and Soul into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. (De fide.)
19. Mary is truly the Mother of God. (De fide.)
20. Mary was concieved without stain of Original sin. (De fide.)
21. From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence. (Sent. communis.)
22. In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.) She was immune from all sin mortal and venial.
23. Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.
24. Mary concieved by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man. (De fide.) She was also taken from the other rib of Adam.
25. Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.) Christ was born from the side of Mary, much like Eve was made from the Side of Adam.
26. Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)
27. Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.) She didn’t have to die, but chose to. She is also the Queen of Martyrs because her Immaculate heart was pierced by the death of her Son.
28. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)
29. Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (Sent. certa.)

 

[Dan-Man916]

1. Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. (Sent. pia et probabilis.)
2. Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her co-operation in the Incarnation. (Mediatio in universali.)
3. Mary is the Co-Redemptrix
4. Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven. (Mediatio in speciali.)
5. Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia. (Sent certa.) Cultus Latria and Cultus Dulia pertain to different types of worship. Cultus literally means worship, NOT adoration(latria) nor veneration or honor, but trully the term worship. For if Cultus meant honor, then Cultus Dulia would be translated as Honor Honor, which would be absurd.
   176)Actual Grace internally and directly enlightens the understanding and strengthens the will. (Sent. certa.)
6. There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)
7. There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will. (De fide.)
8. For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary. (De fide.)
9. Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation. (De fide.)
10. The justified also require actual grace for the performance of salutary acts. (Sent. communis.)
11. Without the special help of God the justified cannot perservere to the end in justification. (De fide.)
12. The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid all sins, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God. (De fide.)
13. Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths. (De fide.)
14. For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required. (De fide.)
15. The Grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa.)
16. Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa.)
17. In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order. (De fide.)
18. In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfil the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time. (Sent. certa.)
19. Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo. (De fide.)
20. Grace cannot be obtained by petitions deriving from purely natural prayer. (Sent. Certa.)
21. Man of himself cannot acquire any positive disposition for grace. (Sent. certa.)
22. Despite men’s sins God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all men. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
23. God gives all the just sufficent grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufficiens) for the observation of the Divine Commandments. (De fide.)
24. God gives all the faithful who are sinners suffienct grace(gratia saltem remote sufficiens) for conversion. (Sent. communis.)

 

[Dan-Man916]

1. God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) suffienct grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)
2. God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness. (De fide.)) God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. (De fide.)
3. The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistable. (De fide.)
4. There is a grace which is truly sufficent and yet remains inefficacious(gratia vere et mere sufficiens. (De fide.)
5. The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified. (De fide.)
6. The justification of an adult is not possible without Faith. (De fide.)
7. Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present. (De fide.)
8. Sanctifying Grace is a created supernatural gift really distinct from God. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
9. Sanctifying Grace is a supernatural state of being which is infused by God, and which permanently inheres in the soul. (Sent. certa.)
10. Sanctifying grace is not a substance, but a real accident, which inheres in the soul-substance. (Sent. certa.)
11. Sanctifying grace is really distinct from charity. (Sent. communior.)
12. Supernatural grace is a participation in the divine nature. (Sent. certa.)
13. Sanctifying grace sanctifies the soul. (De fide.)
14. Sanctifying grace bestows supernatural beauty on the soul. (Sent. communis.)
15. Sanctifying grace makes the just man a friend of God. (De fide.)
16. Sanctifying grace makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim ot the inheritance of Heaven. (De fide.)
17. Sanctifying grace makes the just man a Temple of the Holy Ghost. (Sent. certa.)
18. The three Divine or Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are infused with Sanctifying grace. (De fide)
19. The moral virtues also are infused with sanctifying grace. (Sent. communis.)
20. The Gifts of the Holy Ghost also are infused with sanctifying grace. (Sent. communis.)
21. Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace. (De fide.)
22. The degree of justifying grace is not identical in all the just. (De fide.)
23. Grace can be increased by good works. (De fide.)
    219)The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous (mortal, serious) sin. (De fide.)
24. The loss of sanctifying grace always involves the loss of Charity.
25. By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. (De fide.)
26. A just man merits for himself through each good work an increas of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory. (De fide.)
27. The Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. (Sent. certa.)
28. The Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ. (De fide.)
29. Christ founded the Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time. (De fide.)