A Reply To Your Sig

[Quietfire]

Actually, (here I go sticking my neck out) if I am correct that statement is wrong in the sense that JPII finished what JohnXXIII started.
John XXIII knew he was sick (from what I understand) and got the ball rolling. He knew it would need to be finished by a strong Pope after his death, although I think he was hoping to finish it himself.

Its just MOPO. I could be wrong. But I think thats the general gist of it.
If so, then that statement was most definitely written by a non-catholic.

Anyway, this is really Ironmonk's and Icthus' thread. I doubt either need our help.
But just a quick note to Icthus.

Sometimes it is better to have a greater understanding before engaging in a debate of the magnitude you encountered on that particular site.
Although I give you props for the attempt, what did it gain you? You are now somewhat lost between Catholicism and Protestantism. This cannot be were you wish to be.
Instead of argueing with Catholics, maybe you could simply ask with charity about a specific item. If you dont understand, simply ask for clarification.
Nobody here wishes you harm or pain, though you may think differently.
If you have many friends who are Protestant, instead of debating with them on a face to face one to one basis, invite them here to debate their points.

Personally, I dont debate with Protestants (face to face) because I know I am not ready. Although I listen to them, my mind is already working out a rebuttal, but lack of knowledge forbids my mouth from opening.
I know I would fall into the same trap you did.

I dont know if this helps, but again, it isnt to insult or hurt. Questions asked in curiosity and kindness get answered in kind.

Peace.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 04:07 PM'] But the thing is, you're assuming a Roman Catholic viewpoint of the Church, rather than a Protestant one. In Protestantism, the Church is all those who are regenerated in Christ and hold faithfully to the Faith once delivered to the Saints in Word and Sacrament. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and some Baptists. [/quote]
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject and stick to the topic of this post?


Protestant theology is irrelivant, it all came from a distortion of the Catholic Faith. It was not taught by the first Christians, therefore it is counted with those that left in Acts 20:29-30.

[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,



Since the "fathers" of the protestant faiths were all once Catholic (Luther, Knox, Calvin, etc...)... How were they faithful to what they learned from whom they learned it....? They weren't faithful at all, they distorted it.

Protestant doctrines of man didn't come to be until 1517 AD... You need to look at the bible from an Apostolic point of view.


I'm not assuming anything. See you fail to realize the facts in what is put infront of you, so you run, and try to make a circular argument...

Stick to the points given or you've proved my point.


[quote]all those who are regenerated in Christ and hold faithfully to the Faith once delivered to the Saints in Word and Sacrament. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and some Baptists.[/quote]

Funny how you don't mention Catholics, but multiple other faiths are ok? LOL You described the faith of anti-Catholicism. "One Faith". The only Church to hold faithful to the faith delivered to the Saints in Word and Sacrament is the Catholic Church.

Stick to the points above, either don't post here if you can't answer the questions, it's ok, we know you can't... so you don't have to boost your pride by trying to change the subject.

There are 19,000 pages of saint's and first Christian writings that are at our disposal to show our faith before 600 AD.

If you don't have that, you are counted with those in Acts 20:29-30.


Now, stick to what I brought up in my first 3 posts on this thread or you just go to further show that you've got a house on sand.




-ironmonk

Edited August 8, 2004 by ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 3 2004, 12:03 PM'] You keep saying it's wrong, but you haven't been able to prove anything except that your personal beliefs about Scripture are different than what the Church teaches... if your beliefs where true, why would you have to attack the Catholic Church? [/quote]
That's the most retarded argument I've heard all year. But let me twist it around.

If the Apostle Paul's teaching was true, why would he have to defend it from the Galatians who attacked it?

That's basically what Rome is doing, she is attacking the Gospel of Christ...

[Anna]

Again...
[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 3 2004, 02:03 PM'] [b]Prove it:[/b]

[b]1.. [/b]Prove the the Catholic Church teaching is wrong with the Bible, [u]by posting links to the parts of the Catechism [/u][b]and [/b][u]quoting verses in the bible[/u]...here is the link to the Catechism

[b] [url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm[/url][/b]

[b]2..[/b] For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 500 AD to show that the Catholic Church was not the Church that Christ built. 

These are the writings:
[url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]http://www.logos.com/products/details/518[/url]

You can find the very same writings for free here:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/[/url]





You keep saying it's wrong, but you haven't been able to prove anything except that your personal beliefs about Scripture are different than what the Church teaches... 

Truth cannot contradict truth. There is only one (True) Faith, not two.


... please, save us from the Catholic Church if it's wrong, show us how it's wrong.[/quote]

Please.

Edited August 8, 2004 by Anna

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 8 2004, 06:01 PM']
[/quote]
[quote]Why don't you stop trying to change the subject and stick to the topic of this post?[/quote] You were begging the question, which is a logical fallacy. I corrected you.

[quote]Protestant theology is irrelivant, it all came from a distortion of the Catholic Faith. It was not taught by the first Christians[/quote] Yes, it was - if you consider the first Christians to be the Apostles.

[quote], therefore it is counted with those that left in Acts 20:29-30.[/quote] Of course, you're assuming that 'the group' is the Roman Catholic Church. I would submit, rather, that the group in question is the group that holds faithfully to the teachings of the Apostles as revealed in their memoirs and letters - I.E. the Reformed.

[quote][b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, Since the "fathers" of the protestant faiths were all once Catholic (Luther, Knox, Calvin, etc...)... How were they faithful to what they learned from whom they learned it....?  They weren't faithful at all, they distorted it.
[/quote] What they learned was syncretistic lies and doctrines of men passed off as 'theology' handed down from the "Church" of Rome. They were faithful, rather, to what is revealed in the Bible by the Apostles - they learned their doctrine from the Apostles.

[quote]Stick to the points above, either don't post here if you can't answer the questions, it's ok, we know you can't... so you don't have to boost your pride by trying to change the subject.[/quote] Resorting to taunting now, are we, Max?

[ICTHUS]

SOLA FIDE IN THE FATHERS

Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, [b]or works which we have done in holiness or heart, [i]but through faith[/i]"[/b] (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, [b]and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments[/b]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "[b]I know that through grace you are saved, [i]not of works[/i][/b], but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "[b]No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep[/b], or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, [b]but by faith[/b], through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, [b]that the transgression of many should be hidden in[/b] one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."

Athanasius: "[b]Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith[/b], a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."

Ambrose: "[b]Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man[/b], that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, [b]his "faith is imputed for righteousness[/b]" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "[b]Through faith, without the works of the law[/b], the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, [b]God justified him through faith alone,[/b] not on account of good works which he possessed not."

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, [b]not by works[/b]...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works [i]follow after a justified person[/i]; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...[b]good works, following after justification, [i]show what a man has received."[/i] [/b]

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...[b]put all your confidence in this death alone[/b]. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, [b]when not even our righteousness can answer for itself?[/b] Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, [b]being justified by faith alone[/b], he shall have peace with God."

www.justforcatholics.org

[Anna]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 08:54 PM']

Of course, you're assuming that 'the group' is the Roman Catholic Church. I would submit, rather, that the group in question is the group that holds faithfully to the teachings of the Apostles as revealed in their memoirs and letters - I.E. the Reformed.[/quote] Do you have any historical records of the Reformed, rather than the Catholic Church, upon which to base your assumption?


[quote]What they learned was syncretistic lies and doctrines of men passed off as 'theology' handed down from the "Church" of Rome. They were faithful, rather, to what is revealed in the Bible by the Apostles - they learned their doctrine from the Apostles.[/quote] Pardon. Who canonized the Bible? Who preserved it over the past two thousand years? And who changed it and deleted several entire books, about 500 years ago?
I'd have to say that the Catholic Church is faithful to what Christ taught her; the Apostles were the first Catholic bishops, and the Word and Sacraments have been passed down to the faithful over the centuries by, yes, the same Catholic Church. How can you deny history?

(sorry to butt in)

Edited August 9, 2004 by Anna

[ICTHUS]

Also, something interesting I came across....

The following statements are condemned by the Pope (Clement XI) as being in error:

26. No graces are granted except through faith.

27. Faith is the first grace and the source of all others.

28. The first grace which God grants to the sinner is the remission of sin.

32. Jesus Christ surrendered Himself to death to free forever from the hand of the exterminating angel, by His blood, the first born, that is, the elect.

33. Ah, how much one ought to renounce earthly goods and himself for this, that he may have the confidence of appropriating, so to speak, Christ Jesus to himself, His love, death, and mysteries, as St. Paul does, when he says: "He who loved me, and delivered Himself for me" [Gal. 2:20]. (Notice, here, how the Pope condemns SCRIPTURE ITSELF as heretical!!)

[Aloysius]

source please....

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Anna' date='Aug 8 2004, 07:07 PM'] Pardon.  Who canonized the Bible?  Who preserved it over the past two thousand years?  And who changed it and deleted several entire books, about 500 years ago?
I'd have to say that the Catholic Church is faithful to what Christ taught her; the Apostles were the first Catholic bishops, and the Word and Sacraments have been passed down to the faithful over the centuries by, yes, the same Catholic Church.  How can you deny history?

(sorry to butt in) [/quote]
[quote] Do you have any historical records of the Reformed, rather than the Catholic Church, upon which to base your assumption?[/quote] Well, the Roman Catholic Church didn't really get into hot water until a couple of centuries before the Reformation. Before this, there were a few false doctrines here and there, but nothing that impeded her from being a church of Christ altogether as there is now.

[quote]Pardon.  Who canonized the Bible?  Who preserved it over the past two thousand years? [/quote] Sure, the Roman Church preserved the Scriptures, to which the Reformed owe it a debt of gratitude. But this was part of God's providential plan to restore His Church out of the captivity of the [color=red][edited by littleflower: being disrepectful][/color]

[quote]And who changed it and deleted several entire books, about 500 years ago?[/quote] Those books were part of the Septuagint, and never part of the Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles.

[quote]I'd have to say that the Catholic Church is faithful to what Christ taught her; the Apostles were the first Catholic bishops,[/quote] The Apostles were bishops, yes, but not Roman Catholic bishops.

[quote]and the Word and Sacraments have been passed down to the faithful over the centuries by, yes, the same Catholic Church.  How can you deny history?[/quote] Sure, we receive the Scriptures and the Sacraments from her, but she had perverted them. We reformed them.

[littleflower+JMJ]

why would anything be written by the first bishops of the Church themselves, be put together (by the Holy Spirit),called sacred for thousands of years, defended, keep complete to later (many--many years later) [i]need to be reformed[/i] by ppl who left the Church?

[quote]The Apostles were bishops, yes, but not Roman Catholic bishops.[/quote]

this also doenst' make sense.....does this mean we're not christians because only those who lived in the early times are?

and if so only the apostles, then how can anyone, who are clearly do not have any link or connection with the first apostles, later then say we are can, should and have a right to reform anything (ie. the reformation) ?


pax christi.

[ironmonk]

All,

You see the above evidence as a straw man attempt to change the subject, and distract by throwing everything and the kitchen sink at us.

Anti-Catholics cannot stick to one point about the Catholic Church, because if they did, then they are proven wrong.

Note the quotes without references to the letters or books written. This is typical of those who lie to people like icthus because they don't want them to double check. If you notice sites like Karl Keatings, he has nothing to hide, so he posts the references to the writings, normally to the paragraph number.

I don't have time to answer the barrage of error tonight because I'm going to have to track down each quote which is very time consuming.... If the quote even exists. Typically, the anti-Catholics take a quote out of context (of course) and ignore everything else they taught... then you can take the saint's quote along with the paragraph it's in and show the true context... on top of that, the saints that they quote are all Catholic loyal to the Popes... and they only use the one or two lines from the saints, and ignore all the other VERY Catholic quotes that those saints have.

I can't understand how many of these people insist on we being wrong but never being able to show it, when time and time again they are proven wrong by the very same people they quote.


icthus,

Please try to do the challenge correctly. References, references, references.

Yes, the Apostles were Roman Catholic Bishops. According to Britannica and all the saints.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited August 9, 2004 by ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 07:17 PM'] Sure, the Roman Church preserved the Scriptures, to which the Reformed owe it a debt of gratitude. But this was part of God's providential plan to restore His Church out of the captivity of the [color=red][edited by littleflower: being disrepectful][/color] [/quote]
Being disrespectful, eh?

Revelation 17

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. 2With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries."
3Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5This title was written on her forehead: [b]MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH[/b]. 6I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.
7When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
12"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."
15Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. 18The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

I'm noticing an interesting correlation with the title given to the whore in v.4 with the title given by the Apostle St. Peter to the city of ROME in 1 Peter 5:13

She who is in [b]Babylon[/b], chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 08:05 PM']SOLA FIDE IN THE FATHERS

Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, [b]or works which we have done in holiness or heart, [i]but through faith[/i]"[/b] (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, [b]and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments[/b]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "[b]I know that through grace you are saved, [i]not of works[/i][/b], but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "[b]No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep[/b], or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, [b]but by faith[/b], through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, [b]that the transgression of many should be hidden in[/b] one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."

Athanasius: "[b]Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith[/b], a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."

Ambrose: "[b]Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man[/b], that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, [b]his "faith is imputed for righteousness[/b]" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "[b]Through faith, without the works of the law[/b], the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, [b]God justified him through faith alone,[/b] not on account of good works which he possessed not."

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, [b]not by works[/b]...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works [i]follow after a justified person[/i]; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...[b]good works, following after justification, [i]show what a man has received."[/i] [/b]

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...[b]put all your confidence in this death alone[/b]. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, [b]when not even our righteousness can answer for itself?[/b] Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, [b]being justified by faith alone[/b], he shall have peace with God."

www.justforcatholics.org[/quote]
The Church agrees that justification is by grace (CCC 1996, 2010, ...).
[url="http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=justification+grace&s=SS"]http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis...tion+grace&s=SS[/url]
The Church has never said we are justified by works of the Law. Joe Mizzi isn't the best patrologist, especially since those quotes are on justification, not salvation by faith alone.

What I've read:
[quote][b]Clement of Rome[/b]
Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, [b]being justified by works[/b] and not by words. . . . Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith? . . . So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men. (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4 [A.D. 110]).[/quote]
You first quote was out of context. Deeds play a part in justification.

[quote][b]Theophilus (Ignatius) of Antioch[/b]
Give studious attention to the prophetic writings, and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality [b]by the patient exercise of good works[/b], he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither has eye seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries and fornications and homosexuality and avarice and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, and in the end such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycas 1:14 [ca. A.D. 181]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Clement of Alexandria[/b]
When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Origen[/b]
Whoever dies in his sins, [b]even if he profess to believe in Christ[/b], does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Cyprian[/b]
You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire; you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living (Works and Almsgiving 14 [A.D. 252]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Aphracrtes[/b]
Great is the gift which he that is good has given to us. While not forcing us, and in spite of our sins he wants us to be justified. While he is in no way aided by our good works, he heals us that we may be pleasing in his sight. When we do not wish to ask of him, he is angry with us. He calls out to all of us constantly; "Ask and receive, and when you seek, you shall find" (Treatises 23:48 [A.D. 336-345]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Gregory of Nyssa[/b]
Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. F[b]aith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation[/b]; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]).[/quote]

[quote][b]John Chrysostom[/b]
He that believes in the Son has everlasting life." Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,' someone will say, 'in order to have everlasting life?' [b]By no means![/b] Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, 'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven'; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1[circa A.D. 391]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Jerome[/b]
But since in the Law no one is justified before God, it is evident that the just man lives by faith.' It should be noted that he does not say that a man, a person, lives by faith, lest it be thought that he is condemning good works. Rather, he says the 'just' man lives by faith. He implies thereby that whoever would be faithful and would conduct his life according to the faith can in no other way arrive at the faith or live in it except first he be a just man of pure life, coming up to the faith by certain degrees (Commentaries on Galatians 2:3:11 [A.D. 386]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Augustine[/b]
"He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification." What does this mean, "for our justification?" So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made your-self just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but he does not justify you without your willing it (Sermons 169:13 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

But we know that God does not hear sinners: but if any man is a worshiper of God and does his will, that man God will hear. He still speaks as one only anointed. For God does listen to sinners too. If God did not listen to sinners, it would have been all in vain for the publican to cast down his eyes to the ground and strike his breast saying: "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." And that confession merited justification, just as the blind man merited enlightenment (Homilies on the Gospel of John 44:13 [A.D. 416]).[/quote]
Source:
[url="http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_justification.htm"]http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_justification.htm[/url]

Another good article with the support of the Fathers:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

It seems ironmonk or whoever else should have responses to these. These are all tired old quotes. I think Catholics here just find somehow their faith can be defended and assume it's been proven. phatcatholic and the archivers should move beyond text dropping links and such and into rebuttal sections. I don't think they tread into questioning the defenses or looking beyond them to other questions and inadequacies. I think you'd see for one that the early days were "protestant".. they were heterogeneous in their beliefs.

So


EDIT:

Ironmonk or someone. Ironmonk's challenge is for someone to find a reference in the Catechism. Then to find someone in the early church that conflicted with that.

I'm sure ITC could show you many different viewpoints held by various fathers of the church. (Catholics often talk about how early fathers were not infallible when beliefs don't match the Catholic Church... we all know that) That's how your challenge is presented.

So to focus, you must, or should be anyway, be looking for contradictions taught by different bishops of rome. (you even said we should be able to find contradictions if the Catholic Church is wrong)

[b]If that's the case, your challenge is decieving and perhaps flawed. [/b]


Moreover, can you give us the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the years back to Christ or at least for a long time for various points in the past? Instead of giving us links to the fathers in general you should be giving us links to the Catechisms of the past. That way we can expose any contradictions.

I don't think you can really do that. So I don't think we have any standard to gauge the contradictions.

Ironmonk needs to change his challenge and then say what counsil's and infallibles are the standards.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

dairygirl, with all do respect, i have no idea what you're talking about

[dairygirl4u2c]

sorry Al. I edited it by the way. hope it helps!

[Quietfire]

Oh, please lets not start that whole "Whore of Babylon" thing again, could we give it a rest?

Oh, and btw, i happened to be doing some research on that specific topic tonight for someone in a cult (no really...a cult)

Wanna see it? Ok.
These are NON-CATHOLIC sites.....

{{stub}} Category:Ancient Rome Category:Roman Catholic Church

This is from a non-denomination site:(it listed itself as a non-denomination site)
It was common custom in the centuries before Christ for people in the Roman world to refer to the City of Rome itself as the "City of Seven Hills." The references are numerous and consistent. And indeed, when Romulus and Remus wanted to build a city in the area of the Tibur River (just inland from the coast to afford a greater protection for the city from sea pirates or from the naval warfare of hostile powers), it was divinely selected, in Roman parlance, that the city had to be on "seven hills." The number "seven" was a universal symbol that signified "completion" or "perfection," and the ancients who founded Rome wanted people to know that this particular city was destined to have a world influence and fame, and that it was no ordinary city that was being constructed in the eighth century B.C. The very fact, that Rome was designated "The Seven Hilled City" was significant enough to render it as a sacred and holy city that was designed to have world power and authority. This is one of the reasons the ancient people of the world always respected the City of Rome, whether they were its arch defenders and supporters or its enemies and were alien to its political and religious concepts. Even when the city in the time of the Empire finally grew beyond the strict limits of the "Seven Hills" (and reached out to embrace other hills in the vicinity and even hills on the other side of the Tibur River, such as Vatican Hill), the people for nostalgic reasons still retained the name of the city by its original designation: "the City of Seven Hills."

But strange as it may seem, the City of Jerusalem as it existed in the time of Christ Jesus was also reckoned to be the "City of Seven Hills." This fact was well recognized in Jewish circles. In the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, an eighth century midrashic narrative (section 10), the writer mentioned without commentary (showing that the understanding was well known and required no defense) that "Jerusalem is situated on seven hills" (recorded in The Book of Legends, edited by Bialik and Ravnitzky, p. 371, paragraph 111). And, so it was. Those "seven hills" are easy to identify. If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives. The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One], the middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two], the highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13). On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name), then the "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five] and then to the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six]. And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new "Mount Zion." This makes "Seven Hills" in all.

This does not end the significance of "Seven Hills" for the urban areas that the ancients looked on as being the centers of divine sovereignty on this earth. We are all familiar with Babylon on the Euphrates (which became the capital of the world in the time of Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century B.C.) as being the "Seven Hilled City." And, it may be surprising for some to learn this, but when Constantine the emperor wanted to build a "new Rome" in the eastern part of the Roman Empire (because most of the economic life of the Roman Empire in the fourth century was centered in the eastern half of the Empire and he felt he needed a capital city much nearer the economic center of the Empire), he finally selected a spot on the Bosporus called Byzantium. The reason he selected this spot to be the "New Rome" was because it was a small village also located on "Seven Hills." This made "New Rome" as a City of Seven Hills.

What we observe is the fact that the ancients symbolically looked on the various capitals of the world as having "Seven Hills." The significance of this fact even had a meaning for the apostle John who, under the influence of Christ Jesus himself, wrote the Book of Revelation. We find that the last world capital would be "Mystery Babylon" and that it would have "seven mountains" (Revelation 17:9) associated with it. The fact that history has "Seven Hills" (or "Mountains") associated with FOUR world kingdoms: Babylon, Rome, Byzantium, and Jerusalem, there has been some confusion about which of these (or, perhaps, another "New City") was the intention of the apostle John who was writing for Christ Jesus in the Book of Revelation. The truth is, however, when one looks at the subject of the Book of Revelation carefully, there is only one of those "Cities of Seven Hills" that could possibly be the subject of the End-Time revelation. That is the City of Jerusalem. The "Mystery Babylon" of the Book of Revelation is none other than Jerusalem!

The last world kingdom will be headquartered in Jerusalem, not in Rome, Babylon on the Euphrates or in Byzantium, or anywhere else. The Antichrist will come to Jerusalem. He will look in all appearances as though he is none other than Christ Jesus himself. Remember, Satan and his angels will be expelled from heaven and come to earth (Revelation 12). The world will make a big mistake and think that Satan and his angels are none other than Christ and His angels returning from heaven at the Second Advent. This is the "great lie" the world will believe that the apostle Paul spoke about it Second Thessalonians 2:8-12. The world will think that Satan is none other than Christ. However, I have been telling you readers for over thirty years that the first person who claims to be the returned Christ to earth (even if great miracles are associated with him) IS the false Christ, called in other parts of the Holy Scriptures by the title of Antichrist. The false Christ will come to Jerusalem (the "City of Seven Hills") in order to rule the world, NOT to Rome in Italy!

The false Christ will come to a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem and his image will be placed in the Holy of Holies. He will point out that this is lawful to do in the Mosaic legislation (Exodus 25:18-22; 26:31; 36:8).


This is from Infoplease.com:
The Vatican City State is situated on the Vatican hill, on the right bank of the Tiber River, within the city of Rome.
(Keep in mind that the city of Rome outgrew its original boundries including across the Tiber.)

Edited August 9, 2004 by Quietfire

[Aloysius]

What? you want more material to attempt to proove wrong? Here are some catechisms, proove any part of any of em wrong
[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm"]Catechism[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/aindex.htm"]St. Thomas Aquinas's Catechism[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm"]Catechism of the Council of Trent[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bindex.htm"]Baltimore Catechism[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pindex.htm"]Catechism of Pope St. Pius X[/url]

proove them to contradict
[url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]These[/url] or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]These[/url] or [url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/"]This[/url]

It's very simple, you have tons of material and all you have to do is proove one thing taught by that material is contrary to the consensus of the Early Church Fathers or the Scriptures.

[Aloysius]

[quote]I'm sure ITC could show you many different viewpoints held by various fathers of the church. (Catholics often talk about how early fathers were not infallible [b]when beliefs don't match the [Catholic Church's Teaching]... [/b]we all know that) That's how your challenge is presented. [/quote]

Where do the ECF beliefs not match us? That's what the entire challenge is based on: PROOVE the ECF's beliefs are contradictory to the teaching of the Catholic Church which is centered in the city of the Holy Martyrs Ss. Peter and Paul