A Reply To Your Sig

[dairygirl4u2c]

You have never heard someone say that a particular belief held by the ECF is not representative of the Catholic Church because it is wrong because they are fallible? I'm sure you have. All I'd have to do is find one person who held a belief contradicting the Catholic Church's. (unless they were all infallible) How am I suppose to know the consensus in order to disprove it?

Maybe it's not so much the church fathers we're looking at as the counsils of those days and the infallibles of the bishop of rome. (so we should finally say what is and is not infallible!) But thanks, those catechisms are cool and a good place to start!

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

now there it is: we can proove a consensus. just ask ironmonk: he'll proove consensuses left and right of Church Fathers aggreeing with Catholocism. the challenge is for you to find in the writings of the Church Fathers something that contradicts Catholic Teaching. Everyone on PhatMass has seen this challenge has been around for some time and we have never seen anyone provide such evidence. just quote the writings of the ECFs and the Scriptures showing how they both contradict the Catechism.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 10:34 PM'] 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. [/quote]
I do not understand how you fall for the most basic anti-Catholic attacks now. Which I know you have had to seen this attack on the Church covered in depth on this board before.

Mystery Babylon...
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_th..._of_Babylon.asp[/url]


It's like you have forgotten the answer to 2 + 2, with some of the attacks you are attempting at.


According to your statements about the Catholic Church, you say that the Church established by Christ lost it's way. Which is impossible because Christ said that it would never be overcome.

So, you will of course say that we've got the word "Church" wrong... but your fallacy is braught to light by anyone who knows a little about scripture ryan.

But before we go to scripture - the only One Faith that teaches what the Apostles
taught is the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church had the authority to give us Scripture because they are the ONLY teaching Authority for the Word of God and Christ did not come and take it away like He did to the Jewish Authority. Christ stated that it wouldn't be overcome.

I'm beginning to think the reason why you fell so easily to mustbe is because you don't know the bible well enough.... and of course the Catholic faith. You really should just stop debating and bury your nose in the bible and read it at least four more times, take notes, and in your notes group the verses by subject... and read the writings of the ECF's you quote from if you REALLY want to know what the answer is because you'll become Catholic again, then you won't be Catholic again because you forget to easily.... or because you just like to argue and don't care about the Truth.... or because you are not good with math word problems and logic.


Now, back to Scripture and what the Apostle's taught the pillar and foundation of truth since you fail to rebut anything else on the thread.

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), The Church is the One Faith, in unity of the Apostles (Eph 4:1-6). The Church will be guided in all truth (St. John 14).

That being stated, for the bible to be true, there must be One True Church. Because if what you stated was true that the protestant church believers are the "church" (Ekklesia) spoken of in the bible, then how could they be guided in Truth because they all are different faiths.... NOT one faith in unity. We do not see all the heads of the their churches getting together to discuss matters of faith (Acts 15:6-31). They all preach a different Gospel, they all have doctrines of man, their theology is playing shake n bake with Catholicism and luther, calvin, knox, etc... They left the group (Acts 20:29-30) HOW CAN THEY BE COUNTED AS THE GROUP? (They can only by the Catholic teaching on ignorance).

And as for what you call my "Roman Catholic" view of Scripture....

You are wrong.

From age 8 to 18, I read the bible on my own, and NEVER went to Mass.... TELL ME, how is my view of Scripture because I'm a Catholic... It's not... My view of scripture is the way it is because I spent hundreds of hours taking notes when I read the bible. I grouped the verses in my notes by topic. Then, when I was 15 a light turned on in my head and I realized that there was only One True Church. I thought I better find it because I want to change for Christ. So I studied which one was first because that would be the only One, because Christ said so. Then I learned through unbias sources that the Catholic Church was first, I thought since I was baptized Catholic, I had all I needed and kept studying on my own for the next few years.... but that's another topic....




IF YOU ARE NOT INFALLIBLE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY THAT THE Catholic Church IS WRONG. The only moral right you have is to say that you disagree.

Sad funny how that other totally contradicting faiths are considered ok by you but not the Catholic Church.... because when you take out the error of the major protestant churches, you are left with partial Catholicism....

if you took out the parts of protestant teachings that agreed with Catholicism from the major protestant churches, you would be left with 90% of Catholic teachings.... but the Catholic Church can't be the Church of the bible....

Some protestants believe in Purgatory, some don't
Some protestants believe Mary as our spiritual Mother, some don't
Some protestants believe Mary Ever Virgin, some don't
Some protestants believe in the Trinity, some don't
Some protestants believe the Catholic Church was first and Peter was the first Pope, some don't
Some protestants believe using statues, some don't
Some protestants believe the Eurcharist, some don't
etc, etc, etc....

[color=blue][i]but the Catholic Church did give us the New Testament, because it "WAS" guided by the Holy Spirit, but it lost it's authority sometime between 405 AD and the 1500's... because Luther, Calvin, Knox, and some other people said so... Christ didn't come down or anything, but Christ was wrong about the Church being guided in all truth, and never being overcome....[/i][/color]

What kind of sense does that make? None.

The glove don't fit man...



Prove the Catholic Church wrong in any one point and you would have proved the Catholic Church wrong altogether.

Refer to my previous posts and please provide rebuttal with logic, references, historical writings (WITH REFS), etc...

Or pick a topic you want explained in further detail

Or stop trying to debate with anyone and do the homework... group the Scripture verses by topic in notes, read the ECF - which are the trustworthy men that the Apostles taught.





But... then again, you believe that the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit until sometime after they produced us the New Testament... So, let's keep it to quotes from the Early Church Fathers [u][b]before[/b][/u] 410 AD... that sounds reasonable... Surely if what you say is true, then we can determine the true Church by their teachings....


So, here goes, and I'll even provide a link so that you can go read them in their entirerty.



ECF on Church/Pope/Real Pressence/Salvation - Please note that these are some of the very men you quoted from:


Pope Clement I

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm[/url]


Ignatius of Antioch (Bishop, and trustworthy man who was a pupil of St. John the Apostle)


"Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armor. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you" (Letter to Polycarp 6:2 [A.D. 110]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm[/url]


You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm[/url]


Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm[/url]


Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm[/url]



Justin Marter

"We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man’s actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed" (First Apology 43 [A.D. 151]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm[/url]


St. Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm[/url]


The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm[/url]

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm[/url]


"[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle and which does not grow upon us spontaneously. . . . Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care" (Against Heresies 4:37:7 [A.D. 189]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm[/url]




Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm[/url]


Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm[/url]


St. Augustine

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]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm[/url]


St. Augstine has many many writings that can teach you a lot. He was one of the Bishops involved in Canonizing the New Testament... The Holy Spirit worked through him... Please read some of what he had to say about St. John 14:

Tractate 67 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701067.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701067.htm[/url] (John 14:1-3)
Tractate 68 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701068.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701068.htm[/url] (John 14:1-3)
Tractate 69 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701069.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701069.htm[/url] (John 14:4-6)
Tractate 70 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701070.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701070.htm[/url] (John 14:7-10)
Tractate 71 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701071.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701071.htm[/url] (John 14:10-14)
Tractate 72 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701072.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701072.htm[/url] (John 14:10-14)
Tractate 73 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701073.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701073.htm[/url] (John 14:10-14)
Tractate 74 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701074.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701074.htm[/url] (John 14:15-17)
Tractate 75 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701075.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701075.htm[/url] (John 14:18-21)
Tractate 76 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701076.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701076.htm[/url] (John 14:22-24)
Tractate 77 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701077.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701077.htm[/url] (John 14:25-27)
Tractate 78 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701078.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701078.htm[/url] (John 14:27-28)
Tractate 79 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701079.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701079.htm[/url] (John 14:29-31)

See them all at: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm[/url]




Please, for the love of Christ and truth, go to the many links above, read read read.... You don't need to reply, but save the links in your favorites, print them all out... But do the study, strengthen your knowledge and understanding of Scripture... Then, let's talk.


God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,
ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

On closer inspection, those catechisms are just from 1200 ish and on. So they're basically what exists now.

So you admit your religion is just a God breathed consensus?

Why don't you or ironmonk just admit that using the church fathers wasn't such a great idea and try to figure out what the infallibles throughout history are. That way we can see if we can prove the contradictions or ask why you chose the ones you did etc.

Majority opininon even if it was from the olden days is not the religion for me.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[MorphRC]

ICTHUS.

I find it ironic that you have:

[b]@ Ironmonk - All Roman Catholics are wrong about what the Bible teaches. Think for yourself. [/b]

As your signature, yet use the oldest Protestant lie. Maybe you should take your own advice.

[Aloysius]

dairygirl: the challenge is to take these modern teachings and compare them to the teachings of the early Church. when all of the bishops universally teach something, it is infallible. the ECFs are BISHOPS, if you can show me that the ECFs taught something contrary to the Catholic Faith as it is presented in any of those Catechisms.

You have not showed me any Early Church Father teaching that contradicts these catechisms! Yet you continue to talk with me as if there exists a contradiction.

The Early Church Fathers tell us what the Early Church believed in its first centuries. Those Catechisms tell us what the Catholic Church has believed since about the 12th century. If these are in agreement, there has to be something supernatural going on here preserving this truth.

[P3chrmd]

[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]

show me proof...im waiting

guess what...

YOU CAN"T cause thats a lie...thats what your telling yourself

Catholic Church=Truth! In it you will find the awsomeness of God and His Son, our Savior, CHRIST JESUS!

[Aloysius]

[quote]Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)[/quote]
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church LUMEN GENTIUM #25

Therefore: the Early Church Bishops (Early Church Fathers) when they are in consensus are infallible.

To simplify this EVEN MORE for you: the early Church councils which are the consensus of all the bishops in communion with the Pope (infallible as you insist we give you only what we consider infallible i guess):
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chelcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinople II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinople III[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]

There we go: those are infallible councils of the Early Church. So proove that those contradict the Catechisms I gave you. Or that these councils contradict the scriptures. Or that the catechisms i gave you contradict the Scriptures (the Scriptures as they were understood by the first readers of them, the Church Fathers)

Edited August 9, 2004 by Aloysius

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 9 2004, 01:31 AM'] The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church LUMEN GENTIUM #25

Therefore: the Early Church Bishops (Early Church Fathers) when they are in consensus are infallible.

To simplify this EVEN MORE for you: the early Church councils which are the consensus of all the bishops in communion with the Pope (infallible as you insist we give you only what we consider infallible i guess):
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chelcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinople II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinople III[/url][url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]

There we go: those are infallible councils of the Early Church. So proove that those contradict the Catechisms I gave you. Or that these councils contradict the scriptures. Or that the catechisms i gave you contradict the Scriptures (the Scriptures as they were understood by the first readers of them, the Church Fathers) [/quote]
You forgot about the Council of Jerusalem bro...


Acts 15:6-31, where we read of the first General Church Council. A serious question of doctrine arose, and "the apostles and the presbyters came together to consider this matter" (Acts 15:6).


After hearing the arguments and testimony of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, the leader of the Council, James, then passed a decree with the words, "Therefore I judge" (Acts 15:19, 'dio ego krino'). This passage describes no truly democratic process, but rather it describes submission to the judgment of a central ecclesiastical authority.


After receiving the judgment of James, "it pleased the apostles and presbyters together with the whole Church" (Acts 15:22: 'apostolois kai tois presbyterois syn hole ekklesia') to dispatch delegates with a letter promulgating the decree of the Council. The council then drafted a letter in the name of "the apostles and the brother-presbyters" (Acts 15:23: 'hoi apostoloi kai hoi presbyteroi adelphoi'). This phrasing, and especially the apposition of 'presbyteroi' and 'adelphoi', is quite precise in establishing the authority of the decision of the Council in the office of the ministers who serve and lead the Church, as opposed to a democratic process.


Does the phrase "whole Church" here refer to the universal Church, or merely to the entirety of the congregation at Jerusalem. Recalling that the leadership of the Council was comprised of the apostles who were planting local churches in the Hellenistic world, delegates of the Hellenistic churches, and the presbyters of the church at Jerusalem, we can only rightly conclude that they spoke in the name of the universal Church. Indeed, the letter explicitly states that the authors speak in the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28); since Paul tells us that it is by one Spirit that we were baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13) which is Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) and over which Christ is the head (1 Eph. 1:22-23), when Luke writes in Acts 15:22 of the leadership of the whole Church assenting to the decree of James which is binding on all Gentile Christians, he is necessarily speaking of the Church in its universal or catholic sense.


The Council then sent the letter to the local churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. This letter remarks that the false doctrine which the council repudiated was in fact discernibly false because "we gave no such commandments" (Acts 15:24). Hence, the Bible tells us that right doctrine is subject to the discernment of the leadership of the whole Church.


The decree of the Council of Jerusalem went on, then, to establish a binding obligation upon all Christians in the local churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: "that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29). Did the local churches bristle at this imposition of doctrine and practice from the ecclesiastical leadership of the whole Church? Not at all, but rather they "rejoiced over its encouragement" (Acts 15:31).

Clearly, the Bible itself sets a precedent for the government of the universal Church by means of General Councils.


-the above put together by a faithful servant: [url="http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/church1.html"]http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/church1.html[/url]



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Aloysius]

well, the only document they could find from the Council of Jerusalem is the Book of Acts, the Bible itself. dairygirl seems to want me to provide her infallible documentation of the early church, so she can try to proove that infallible doctrine to be in opposition to something infallbly taught today. that was my reason for linkin the ecumenical councils.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 9 2004, 01:45 AM'] well, the only document they could find from the Council of Jerusalem is the Book of Acts, the Bible itself. dairygirl seems to want me to provide her infallible documentation of the early church, so she can try to proove that infallible doctrine to be in opposition to something infallbly taught today. that was my reason for linkin the ecumenical councils. [/quote]
Oh, I understand... but to someone who doesn't, they might be able to connect the dots if you know what I mean....

Councils are shown clearly in the NT... Who's been having Concils of the Faith for 2000 years...? Da Catholics.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'll find a contradiction from a church father soon enough. I can't believe I have to find one though because people always say that a contradicting father doesn't prove anything since they are fallible. I assume by father you simply mean the men who are quoted in the links for the early church.

Are you saying the the Catholic Church teaches that the church fathers all wrote infallibly?



[quote]Early Church Bishops (Early Church Fathers) [/quote]

If you mean bishops then say it. Unless I'm missing that they are synonomous to researchers or something.

Or if you mean counsils or infallible documents, then say it. (then it'd be nice to define what they are.. and thank you for your links.. I'll look into their validity)

Or if you mean we have to define a consensus in our favor that contradicts the Catholic Church, then say it. (I never knew general consensuses were what defined the RC faith)

What is right now the bet put on by ironmonk is either misleading or flawed. It actually look flawed. But either way, it's so vaque (and most people are prolly not apt enough to point it out) that no wonder you got no where.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

if you're really wanting this assurance of infallibility thing, then only use the links to the councils i mentioned.

the Early Church Fathers WERE BISHOPS.

your quote from the ECF should be in context and cooberated by other Early Church Fathers.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I still don't know why we're looking at bishops. Or at least how we are. At first in this clarification it was said to find a single bishop, unless I'm mistaken, that taught a single error. Or are you saying the the Catholic Church teaches that the church fathers all wrote infallibly? Unless you want me to look at the consensuses to see if they contradicted throughout time.

So, the only way for this proof to work is if I find a general consensus that conflicted with another general consensus within the Catholic Church?

Or should I try to find a council document that contradicts another from a counsil.

Or should I try to find a single father that taught an error?

Don't just say all of them. Unless a single father with a single error is sufficient.

Do Origen and all the people count? I know Firmilian is often cited, does he count. Well, there ya go. A bishop (I believe) that was in heresy. Guess that rules out the single bishop thing. (which I think shows how the original deal was misleading/flawed)

Now I'll have to look into the councils and consensuses.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

I'm gonna make it simply for you:
here are the infallible statements of the councils of the Early Church
[quote][url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chelcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinople II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinople III[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]
[/quote]

find one statement there that contradicts one statement in any of these catechisms
[quote][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][/quote]

I simplified it to those things for you because you can't seem to understand the theory that the ECFs AGREE with the Current Catholic Church.

[Aloysius]

it was never meant to be a single bishop thing. reread his challenge:
[quote][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]
[/quote]

writings, plural. that means saying well Augustine and Turtillian and Ignatius and Origen and Chrysostom all taught such and such (providing quotes from them) but the Catechism teaches such and such (providing a quote from the Catechism)

Anyway, I simplified it for you to restrict it to only finding ONE statement back then and ONE statement now that contradict.

[ironmonk]

DAIRY AGAIN I ASK...PLEASE START YOUR OWN THREAD.

[dairygirl4u2c]

First, I apologize for not reading your post closer earlier that said that the ECF's were actually bishops and making you say it again. (but it would be nice if ironmonk and you all clarified from the onset though)

Also, I suppose Firmilian isn't a church father? (though he's cited by catholics some) You need to specify who they are. I realize they are probably easily accesible at newadvent. But I'm just saying for the bet's sake.


Though you're not ironmonk since he might have something else to say. Now I think you can admit after this redefining that these two proposals are not really even that close at all.

[quote]here are the infallible statements of the councils of the Early Church[/quote]


[quote]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. [/quote]

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

I simplified it for you because you were complaining about the other one. Ironmonk's challenge was basically for you to show that the ECF's writings differ from current Catholic teaching. anyway: go [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17514"]here[/url] to continue seeing as Ironmonk asked you to leave this thread

[MorphRC]

Is the Council of jerusalem, considered a valid council?