A Reply To Your Sig

[Aloysius]

of course! why wouldn't it be? it meets the criteria-- the bishops (Apostles) in communion with the Pope (Peter)

we don't still have the letter it sent out or documentation of everything they decided there, just an account of it in Acts.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 8 2004, 10:34 PM'] 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! [/quote]
Precisely; Rome rests on an inconsistent standard, since many of the Fathers disagree.

[Aloysius]

there's a consensus of agreement to Catholic Doctrine

there is no consensus of disagreement ot Catholic Doctrine

Find a consensus against Catholic Doctrine.

The first 7 Ecumenical Councils are all examples of a consensus.

Either that or show mutliple Church Fathers all agreeing on something contrary to Catholic Doctrine.

The real challenge is for a non-Catholic to actually make a legitimate argument citing legitimate sources against the Catholic Church instead of just following what ignorant anti-Catholics attack of what they think is the Catholic Church.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 9 2004, 08:50 PM'] Precisely; Rome rests on an inconsistent standard, since many of the Fathers disagree. [/quote]
Another attempt to change the subject.


The Holy Spirit guides the Councils and the Pope, just as Christ promised.

Some bishops may be off on one or two things, but that is why there are the Councils... the same Councils which were guided by the Holy Spirit with the Authority given to them by Christ to give us the NT.


Again I say... Another attempt to change the subject.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

Remember, you can't disprove a negative, like you can't disprove that God doesn't exist type of thing. But whereever there was any hint of (un)due authority from the bishop of rome, there were almost always dissenters. But anyway. (in fact don't even reply to this paragraph or we'll get distracted)


ICTHUS is actually sticking ot the point. Unless you mean by only saying what he's saying, he's not getting hard evidence, and not sticking to the point of your original bet. But you yourself just said that one or two may be wrong, that's why there were councils. There is no need to find ECFs that disagreed with the Catholic Church if we all agree there were some.

You are all starting to talk about councils. Maybe it'd help if you clarifi8ed your original bet. Especially considering that your links only give ECFs and not the Councils.

Edited August 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

it's simple. there are two challenges:

one: get quotes from the Catechism and quotes from the Bible and show that they oppose each other

two: get quotes from the Catechism and quotes from various church fathers which all agree on a point that contradicts the Catechism thus disproving the idea that the Church of the ECFs was the Catholic Church. It's not to proove whether or not there were dissenters, but to proove that it wasn't the Catholic Church. In fact: to proove that there were dissenters who were dealt with accordingly is to proove that it WAS the Catholic Church! Proove that the Church of the ECFs was contrary to today's Catholic Church.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Can you prove that it was the Catholic Church? Prove that they went to the bishop of rome for the end of story approval/disapproval. And by this I suppose I mean, prove that they weren't just trying to stay in line with what the bishop of rome would think best since he's got such an antique church?

Some might be upset that I'm trying to dichotomize, but I'd think if it weren't clearer that the bishop was final in a holy sense, then there's no reason why I can't dichotomize, and you have not proven your case.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 10 2004, 01:09 PM'] Can you prove that it was the Catholic Church? Prove that they went to the bishop of rome for the end of story approval/disapproval. And by this I suppose I mean, prove that they weren't just trying to stay in line with what the bishop of rome would think best since he's got such an antique church?

Some might be upset that I'm trying to dichotomize, but I'd think if it weren't clearer that the bishop was final in a holy sense, then there's no reason why I can't dichotomize, and you have not proven your case. [/quote]
We have already done that.

History proves it.

People are getting upset because YOU ASK THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THE ANSWERS GIVEN.

MULTIPLE THREADS HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS SINCE YOU CAME TO THIS BOARD.... YOU FAIL TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE ANSWERS... YOU FAIL TO ACTUALLY GO TO THE LINKS PROVIDED.

IF YOU READ THE LINKS PROVIDED AND THE WRITINGS OF THE Bishops, AND KNEW WHAT THE Church TEACHES, THEN YOU WOULD SEE THE PROOF THAT THEY ARE INDEED Catholic Bishops.... AS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO AT LEAST FOUR TIMES ON PAST THREADS.

ENOUGH WITH STUPID QUESTIONS... YES, THERE ARE STUPID QUESTIONS, THOSE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED OVER AND OVER AFTER THE ANSWERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN MULTIPLE TIMES ARE STUPID.

ALSO, LEARN THE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS YOU ARE USING.... "dichotomize" MEANS TO SEPERATE... YOU ARE NOT SEPERATING ANYTHING....

WHY DON'T YOU LEARN A LITTLE ABOUT HISTORY, AND PAY ATTENTION TO THE ANSWERS GIVEN?

[Iacobus]

Ok, I think I am degressing her, but on that matter of sigs the key word that sparked this debate is "all." Some Roman Catholics may be wrong on what the Bible teachs. John Kerry seems to be but his soul is indealible marked Roman Catholic. Once Catholic, Always Catholic. Same with Catholics who leave the faith. I know several Catholics, who are trying to be devout, that ram heads with the Churchs teaching on some areas of the Bible. They are mistaken. But neither the Church, nor all or even most Catholics are mistaken.

As to IM sig. Some, few but some, anti Catholics truly know Catholic teaching and for some reason they reject it. I don't know why nor do I make a pretense to knowing. But some know what the Church is and don't like it. Your sig implies that all anti Catholics are ignorant of the Churchs teaching. Most are but not all.

I know that is off topic of the debate but it is what sparked it. Both sigs seem in error, not an error of being wrong but an error of extragarating.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Ironmonk's just putting "All" in there because that's how logic statements are set up on tests. Anytime someone puts all on there, usually it's wrong. But since he also put "anti-catholics" he can mean people who hate the church, or whatever he wants it to mean really. And I'm sure he's putting it up in defiance to how most people tell catholics to think for themselves. I think he needs to take a break from apologetics and just live his faith. He's either insecure or likes to be justly indignant.


I was dichotomizing aka separating the bishop of rome's perceived role. One is the role where he is just a large and influential bishop. The other is where he is the vicar of christ. There is no problems here, look at context of what I wrote yada yada yada.

No one's shown how this "dichotomization" is necessarily flawed. Are you talking about going to www.catholic.com and looking at the quotes there that are allegedly necessarily in support of the papacy as the vicar of christ? Probably you are talking about looking them up for context too. But still.

[quote]Can you **prove** that it was the Catholic Church? Prove that they went to the bishop of rome for the end of story approval/disapproval. And by this I suppose I mean, prove that they weren't just trying to stay in line with what the bishop of rome would think best since he's got such an antique church?[/quote]

I can start my own thread if you want. But, please, someone else answer. I am getting tired of all the caps, and the "God is infallible. christ is God. Therefore, Christ infallible. Christ made the church infallible. Therefore, the church is infallble" "proofs".


Besides, I've actually look at the contexts in the past, and simply disagree. Usually I stop right there because I don't feel like debating but see that there's room for interpretation. I just want to see what the best you've got is out of curiosity. Lately I've had some time so would like someone to "prove" definitively that the Catholic Church is right in retaliation for us not being able to prove the Catholic Church is necessarily wrong; I'm willing to go the whole way.

Edited August 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

Ironmonk has read all of the ECF's writings, so don't accuse him of taking anything out of context. He knows the context better than you, he's read it all.

[Aloysius]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17515"]don't hijack ironmonk's thread[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

Suppose that ICTHUS did have somewhat of a consensus argument that he's not going through with. Sorry monk.


[quote]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, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; 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: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, 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, that the transgression of many should be hidden in 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: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, 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 [b]faith alone[/b] in Christ."

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

Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, 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 [b]confession alone[/b]."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through [b]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, not by works...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...[b]good works follow after a justified person[/b]; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. 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, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? 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, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God."[/quote]

EDIT: I thought the quote from Ironmonk were on the faith statements ICTHUS had.

Edited August 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

ICTHUS didn't cite any of his quotations, thus he probably just copied and pasted from an anti-Catholic site. no one can go check the context of his quotes or whether they even exist.

y did you post a quote from ironmonk?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I already replied to those quotes earlier in this very thread. I even gave them the benefit of the doubt by not checking the translations for accuracy. They were taken from Joe Mizzi's website, in an article where he tries to prove Sola Fide by citing the Fathers on justification and works of the Law (salvation and justification are not the same thing). In order for those quotes to be a contradiction of Church teaching, you would have to show that the Church thinks we are justified by works of the Mosaic Law, but if you read the Catechism, you will see that isn't the case.

[EDIT]: You can view my post on page two here:
[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17136&st=25#"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17136&st=25#[/url]

Edited August 10, 2004 by thedude