A Reply To Your Sig

[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?