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.Nope, but I would be interested in seeing your historical and scriptural evidence that proves that it is.
When you show me that he said any such thing, I’ll answer that question!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?
Why indeed? But since I have never claimed anything so silly, your argument floats off into the air and hits nothing. This is one of the biggest problems with defenders of Catholicism on this forum. You seem to think that there is never any middle ground between the dogmas currently maintained by your Communion and some hypothetical straw-man position directly opposed to those dogmas. Of course the bishop of Rome had influence.When Polycarp of Smyrna in the early 2nd century went to Rome to speak with the Bishop of Rome over the Easter controversy, what was he doing? If the Bishop of Rome had no greater influence other than his own assembly, why did Polycarp travel so far for nothing?
This entire discussion hinges on what we mean by words like “very same.” If you are maintaining that there is an essential identity, then of course I will agree, and I will claim the same for Protestant Eucharists as well (certainly for Anglican celebrations but not only those). And the same on the broader issue. If you want to make an argument based on identity, you have to define identity in such a way as to support your argument. The broad outline of the Mass given by St. Justin doesn’t support any such argument. Mainline Protestants in general follow St. Justin’s outline in their liturgies, at least in the official liturgical guidelines put out by the denominations. You can’t get any traction from something as vague as that for the argument of the OP.Do I need to recite Justin’s description of the Mass to the Roman emperor Titus that clearly outlines the very same Mass that Catholics and Orthodox celebrate around the world?
I have the book and I can’t help but note that Mary gets very, very little attention…so if that is your historical source for the RC Marion doctrines being part of the original deposit of faith, then you have a very big problem. Please, provide some precise citations that support the OP of this thread as opposed to vague dodges. Thank-you.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.
If you have the book, then you would know that Eusebius didn’t write to catalog the Tradition of the Apostles, but instead gave a historical account that drew greatly from Hegesippus from the time of the Apostles to his present time.I have the book and I can’t help but note that Mary gets very, very little attention…so if that is your historical source for the RC Marion doctrines being part of the original deposit of faith, then you have a very big problem. Please, provide some precise citations that support the OP of this thread as opposed to vague dodges. Thank-you.
What is your understanding of what the term “original” deposit of faith means?so if that is your historical source for the RC Marion doctrines being part of the original deposit of faith,
Then why doesn’t the same principle apply to dogmas defined later? If it’s the same Church, then it has the same authority to make definitive, binding statements re: the Faith as it did in the 4th and 5th centuries, does it not?Certainly. I would never dream of claiming that the Trinitarian and Christological beliefs Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox share today are simply identical to those of the first three centuries. And if anyone were to try to combat JWs or Mormons or Unitarians by making such an argument, they’d go down in flames very quickly against a reasonably skilled and knowledgeable opponent.
Edwin
The objection to the term “homoousios” was that it had previously been used by pagan philosophers, and its use by the heretic Paul of Samosata was condemned because of his misapplication of the principle in monarchianist terms.Of course not. But before then, what they were preaching was not clearly incompatible with the Catholic faith. Lots of people at Nicea were confused precisely because “homoousios” was a fairly new term that had previously been used solely by heretics, and because so much of the language of the Arians sounded traditional.
Even before the Council, Arius was condemned by as having introduced an innovation that was not part of the Faith. Whether or not the technical term “homoousios” was used, the belief that God is one God in three Persons is recorded as having been expressly taught as early as the first century. In a similar fashion, just because the technical term “transubstantiation” was used by alchemists and doesn’t appear in early writings doesn’t mean that the Church believed that the Eucharist was something other than Christ made really, truly, and substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine. You’re confusing the technical definition of an article of faith with the establishment of something as an article of faith. The Church establishes nothing new when a dogma is proclaimed. A dogma is simply a more complete definition of something that has been part of the faith since the Apostles.Before 325 the dogma that Christ was “homoousios” with the Father was not characteristic of “Catholicism.” That’s the counterpart to what I am saying.
Edwin
Well, I asked:As such, why are you asking for something on the development of marian doctrines from a history book?
and so what are the exact details of that original deposit?One thing he does account, though, is that the orthodox Christian faith was to be found in the teaching handed down from the Apostles that was preserved by the teaching of the Church and protected by the Bishops. That IS the Apostolic faith.
…and you need to actually provide those citations in order to properly make the claim in the OP. Again, please provide a proper answer to the two requests at the top of this post. (Of course, you will need to also delineate those 1500 year old beliefs that would make one Catholic as opposed to protestant).You should, instead, be reading the writings of the Apostolic and Patristic Fathers that give witness to the Apostolic Tradition that was handed down.
What is your understanding of Catholic Marian beliefs?so if that is your historical source for the RC Marion doctrines being part of the original deposit of faith,
Sorry to jump in here Pilgrim but I have a question right back to you. Why should I have to follow Irenaeus?? Since when does Irenaeus speak for the entire church? This is where the Roman Catholic church tries to make that connection to the Apostles to claim it’s supposed authority.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?
He went to clarify the celebration because Asia was using the Quartodeciman practice. Polycarp didn’t appear to be seeking permission. Just to have a discussion.When Polycarp of Smyrna in the early 2nd century went to Rome to speak with the Bishop of Rome over the Easter controversy, what was he doing? If the Bishop of Rome had no greater influence other than his own assembly, why did Polycarp travel so far for nothing?
Please do because Justin does not discuss the mass as it is defined today. Justin never uses transubstantiation nor does he give us reason to believe any power of consecration is conferred upon the Bishop or Priest. If you look at his description of worship it fits what many churches do today including many non-Roman Catholic churches. Your argument is pointless here.Do I need to recite Justin’s description of the Mass to the Roman emperor Titus that clearly outlines the very same Mass that Catholics and Orthodox celebrate around the world?
What beliefs did I dilineate?Well, I asked:
would you also be so kind as to provide some of this historical evidence….specifically I would be interested in seeing the earliest historical evidence for each of the (distinctly Catholic) beliefs that you delineated so that one can see (from history) that the belief goes back the full 1500 years
You have the text. What does it say?…and you referred to Eusebius…
and so what are the exact details of that original deposit?
What does it mean for the Church to have the mark of catholicity, and how does that mark relate to Christ and to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church.and so what are the exact details of that original deposit?
St. Basil the Great:and so what are the exact details of that original deposit?
Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;–which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;–a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?
Irenaus isn’t the author of the Tradition. Irenaus is the witness of the Tradition in what he attests to in his writings. As for why do we believe it? We believe it because the Church believed it. What Irenaus wrote was a witness to what all Christians believed. As such, we do not believe just because Irenaus has some inherent authority. We believe because we believe that the Holy Spirit lives and acts in the Church, and that the witness that just happened to be penned by Irenaus was received by the Church in all places everywhere.Sorry to jump in here Pilgrim but I have a question right back to you. Why should I have to follow Irenaeus?? Since when does Irenaeus speak for the entire church? This is where the Roman Catholic church tries to make that connection to the Apostles to claim it’s supposed authority.
I’ll let the maker of the OP answer these questions as it is his assertion that “for the first 1500 years of Christianity, they were Catholic in belief” and “that Christ did in fact establish the Catholic faith?” He also claimed to “have the historical evidence as well as Scripture.” If one can’t produce those original 1500 year old beliefs or the historical evidence or the scripture, then one shouldn’t make those claims. Agreed?What is your understanding of what the term “original” deposit of faith means?
How was the revelation of God given?
How has it developed?
How was it preserved?
and how was it been enumerated?
To answer your question requires that there be a common understanding of how God reveals himself to the Church and through the Church.
see the CCC.What is your understanding of Catholic Marian beliefs?
read my post again…I told you what you would need to delineate.What beliefs did I dilineate?
The OP declared:You seem to be looking for some sort of list, but this isn’t the question to ask.
The Apostolic faith didn’t develop with a listing of all beliefs.
So I can only assume that you think the efforts of the RCC in creating a Catechism were fundamentally flawed b/c it created some sort of list of beliefs. Interesting.The premise of some kind of listing, like the bible alone, is the fundamental flawed premise of Protestantism.
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.Irenaus isn’t the author of the Tradition. Irenaus is the witness of the Tradition in what he attests to in his writings. As for why do we believe it? We believe it because the Church believed it. What Irenaus wrote was a witness to what all Christians believed. As such, we do not believe just because Irenaus has some inherent authority. We believe because we believe that the Holy Spirit lives and acts in the Church, and that the witness that just happened to be penned by Irenaus was received by the Church in all places everywhere.
That is why the Church affirms some things written by the Fathers and doesn’t affirm other things written by those same Fathers. It isn’t because of the inherent ability of that person. it is because that person is a witness to that revelation and the corresponding reception of the Church by the Holy Spirit.
What do you think the CCC says about Mary?see the CCC.
And I answered that your question is based on a false premise in the way you are asking it.…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).
I don’t know why you are assuming this. But your answer demonstrates the problem I see in your posts. You are attempting to interpret my posts by making assumptions about what I am saying.So I can only assume that you think the efforts of the RCC in creating a Catechism were fundamentally flawed b/c it created some sort of list of beliefs. Interesting.
I already explained this. The writings of the Fathers give witness to the living Tradition of the Church which is given by the Spirit of Truth. The point is not the inherent authority of any particular Chruch Father. The point IS the witness of that Father to the Living Tradition given by the Holy Spirit. That is litmus test the Church uses in affirming the 'teaching of the Fathers". It is their witness, not their personal wisdom or insight. This is a very charismatic concept. I’m not sure why Protestants and especially Evangelicals have a difficult time with this concept.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.
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?I already explained this. The writings of the Fathers give witness to the living Tradition of the Church which is given by the Spirit of Truth. The point is not the inherent authority of any particular Chruch Father. The point IS the witness of that Father to the Living Tradition given by the Holy Spirit. That is litmus test the Church uses in affirming the 'teaching of the Fathers". It is their witness, not their personal wisdom or insight. This is a very charismatic concept. I’m not sure why Protestants and especially Evangelicals have a difficult time with this concept.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htmWe have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.-Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htmFor as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.-Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4:18:5)
The first Apostles were not exactly the same as Jesus and therefore “drifted” from being Catholic by your definition?I think you already stated the problem OTCA. The Catholic Church drifted frombeing Catholic. Too bad that some Church leaders decided to be politicians instead of churchmen. I hate that it happened.