Clarification For The Proposal To Icthus

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 13 2004, 05:25 PM'] [quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 9 2004, 12:41 AM']My Challenge is to proove that any statement from an Early Council contradicts current Catholic Teaching. I was tryin to make it easier for you, you need only ONE quote from the past and ONE from the present that contradict.[/quote]
A Council, or a Father? [/quote]
I would think that Aloysius means an Ecumenical Council, i.e., a definition of an Ecumenical Council which is intended to bind the Church to a particular proposition as [i]de fide[/i]. The reason I say this, is that, clearly, the Fathers as individuals are not infallible. Even one of my favorite Fathers, St. Gregory of Nyssa, at one point taught a form of the Apokatastasis heresy.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 14, 2004 by Apotheoun

[ICTHUS]

Would the Church affirm everything in St. Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 15 2004, 03:38 PM'] Would the Church affirm everything in St. Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings? [/quote]
No, not necessarily, because as I indicated in my previous post, the Fathers as individuals are not the Magisterium, and so they are not individually infallible.

[ICTHUS]

So the Church can just say 'No, you're wrong' when one of the Fathers exegetes the Scripture in a way that is inconsistent with its perversions of the Holy Gospel?

[Aloysius]

you can't find a substantial group of ECFs that agree on a doctrine contrary to Church teaching though, it has never been done. indiscrepencies here and there in the ECFs that were clearly ironed out the BIBLICAL WAY (through a council guided by the Holy Spirit)

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Perhaps this would be helpful:
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ198.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ198.HTM[/url]

And as a side note, where in the Bible does Jesus suggest ad hominem attacks as an effective means of evangelization? If this is the enlightened and reformed way a Christian is supposed to talk to his brothers, than I choose to remain a heretic.

[Circle_Master]

Hey Icthus, I was trying to send a message or something to you but it seems my PM's and email are both disabled on phatmass. I guess I was completely too hostile in my non-Catholic position or something .

Nevertheless, shoot me an email at vogelz@gmail.com if you would. I'd like to exchange a few emails, ask some questions etc.

Peace-

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Aug 18 2004, 08:49 AM'] Hey Icthus, I was trying to send a message or something to you but it seems my PM's and email are both disabled on phatmass.  I guess I was completely too hostile in my non-Catholic position or something .

Nevertheless, shoot me an email at vogelz@gmail.com if you would.  I'd like to exchange a few emails, ask some questions etc.

Peace- [/quote]
I think it's just that the Romanists want to keep the Truth supressed by their wickedness (Romans 1) by preventing non-Catholics from communicating.

Edited August 20, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Guest JeffCR07]

I can't believe you actually think that...you don't, do you?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

ICTHUS,
You're going to get yourself suppressed (or ignored) here if you don't grow up. I feel like I'm reading a Chick tract. This is the true Christianity? The "reformed" Christianity? When did Jesus suggest the use of smack talk as a mode of evangelization?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 19 2004, 08:52 PM'] I can't believe you actually think that...you don't, do you? [/quote]
No, I was kidding, sort of. I believe that Roman Catholicism supresses the Truth in its wickedness, as per Romans 1, because it is a corrupt agent of Satan for the destruction of souls, but I don't believe that the people on this board have taken away mine (and Circle Masters) pm privileges in order to intentionally supress the Truth.

The reason I say the above is that when I was a Roman Catholic, I heard all kinds of talk about staying away from Protestantism (I even saw a confession pamphlet about confessing involvement in Bible believing churches!), and a Roman Catholic schoolteacher of mine told me that reading the Scriptures was unnecessary to the Faith of Christ. By teaching these things (or letting them go on), Romanism shows itself to be a supressor of the Truth contained in the Scriptures.

Edited August 22, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Justified Saint]

Catholic reservations regarding Protestantism are well-founded for the simple fact that Proestantism is 30,000 different things at once. You got Mainline, Liberal Protestantism, Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, Classical Protestantism, Reformed which exists solely for the purpose of debating theology as it always has, and then all the endless lists of denominations and cultic offshoots.

It's no wonder Catholics are a little spooked at times by this.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]a Roman Catholic schoolteacher of mine told me that reading the Scriptures was unnecessary to the Faith of Christ. [/quote]

[i]Reading[/i] the scriptures IS unnecessary, though highly advised if it can be done. [i]Living[/i] them is what is necessary.

No one claims that the illiterate descend immediately to Hell.

All that is necessary is that Christ's message be taught, believed, and lived.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Justified Saint]

So true Jeff. Catholic teaching places such a profoundly different emphasis on the gospel that I fear too often escapes the notice of many Protestants - especially those that are caught up in too much Bible academia. Historically, the difference can more or less be noticed. The Catholic Church has always been known for its places of refuge, its shelters, schools, and hospitals. I simply don't see this legacy as much with those Christians of the Protestant persuasion. Admittedly this is a broad generalization and certainly I am not saying that Protestants don't care about these things or haven't contributed to a lot of social justice - of course they have. But the fact is that the emphasis doesn't seem to be as strong as it is with Catholics and ultimately I think it stems from how we understand the gospel of Christ. With Protestants its all about faith alone while as a rule Catholic teaching places a rather deeper understanding of the gospel than this.

I want to avoid generalizations which should be real easy to do when talking about Protestants because by their factitious nature they are so un-general.

[yiannii]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 22 2004, 02:06 PM'] No, I was kidding, sort of. I believe that Roman Catholicism supresses the Truth in its wickedness, as per Romans 1, because it is a corrupt agent of Satan for the destruction of souls, but I don't believe that the people on this board have taken away mine (and Circle Masters) pm privileges in order to intentionally supress the Truth.

The reason I say the above is that when I was a Roman Catholic, I heard all kinds of talk about staying away from Protestantism (I even saw a confession pamphlet about confessing involvement in Bible believing churches!), and a Roman Catholic schoolteacher of mine told me that reading the Scriptures was unnecessary to the Faith of Christ. By teaching these things (or letting them go on), Romanism shows itself to be a supressor of the Truth contained in the Scriptures. [/quote]
So can I get something straightened out here: you are basing your judgements on Catholicism on your individual experience with a few Catholics who may have had the wrong idea?

[Aloysius]

no i don't think so

i'd say he over intellectualized his faith as a Catholic and when he came to false conclusions in his studies, they became part of his faith, and then he started tearing holes in his own false conclusions and before he knew it he was out of the Catholic Church and in the clutches of liars who distorted his mind and convinced him to dig up any little discrepency he could remember as a Catholic and bring it up out of context to try to proove the Church wrong

that's just my analysis of watching him here for the past year.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 22 2004, 12:40 AM']
[i]Reading[/i] the scriptures IS unnecessary, though highly advised if it can be done. [i]Living[/i] them is what is necessary. [/quote]
Jeff, I can see your point. Of course I would not expect an illiterate person to read the Scriptures, though ideally, any Christian missionary who brings the Scriptures to an illiterate people ought to teach them to read and write, too.

The person in question here was a highly intelligent man, and of course, literate. He simply refused to be educated in the Scriptures, seeing it as unnecessary to his faith. This is the lax attitude towards the Bible that I'm referring to - and I've seen it more times than a few - is simply disturbing and I wonder why, if the Roman Heirarchy is aware of it, they don't do something to correct it.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Icthus, my only reply to this is that it is not a problem of the Roman Hierarchy, but of human nature. It seems to me that, because there [i]is[/i] a hierarchy within the Church, many find it easy to just shift all the blame there. However, this should not be the case. There are a great many Protestants I have met who have told me that they dont need to study the Bible, or even strive to be better people, because, since they have accepted Jesus, they are saved, period.

Now, I would never claim that this is true of all Protestants, so I would beg you not assert it true of all Catholics. The lukewarm and mistaken exist in all faiths, it is a testiment to our weakness as human beings. Let us turn our eyes from this personal weakness, and rather consider the actual teachings of our faiths.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[yiannii]

Funny how the question wasn't answered.

[Guest JeffCR07]

yiannii, while I certainly understand your feelings of frustration at having your question left unanswered, please remember charity. I use sarcasm far too much as well, but we should work to not become overly irritated.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff