Clarification For The Proposal To Icthus

[dairygirl4u2c]

This is a new thread offshoot from "A reply to Icthus's signiture" thread.


[quote]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][/quote]

[Aloysius]

I explained that I was simplifying it for you.

Ironmonk's challenge is basically show the consensus of the Church Fathers opposing current Catholic Teaching. Because the Church Fathers are the Church's first bishops, so if they all have consensus on a teaching they are infallible. but I [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17514"]simplified it for you[/url] to make it so you only had to get ONE quote from the Early Church and ONE quote from the Catechism. the second part of Ironmonk's challenge requires you get ONE quote from the Catechism and MULTIPLE quotes from VARIOUS ECF's that all contradict the Catechism.

[dairygirl4u2c]

This is Al's response to the previous post.

[quote]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 here to continue seeing as Ironmonk asked you to leave this thread [/quote]

Again, I need how you "simpliied" it clarified (I didn't say simplified or we'd be in a word mess! ).

You shouldn't be dumbing down the original proposal. If there are other means to prove the Catholic Church wrong then clarify. I think you're not really sure, which just goes to show it needs clarified.

For example, can we find consensus that contradicted or not? For example, I would maybe look to see if consensuses of bishops thought that any noncatholic whatsoever who dies outside the Catholic Church would be hellbound. But only if you allow that. You did say consensus in the other thread.

Don't simplify it if by that you are dumbing it down. In fact, don't say or do the simplify... why don't we try clarify.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

okay... the challenge is to proove that the Catholic Church today is not the same Church as from the begining, a claim made by many non-Catholics. Now, Ironmonk was basically asking you to show a consensus of teachings by the Early Church Fathers that contradicts today's Catholic Teaching.

If you would like to attempt to show a consensus of bishops in union with the Pope teaching "that any noncatholic whatsoever who dies outside the Catholic Church would be hellbound" Of course, it'd be impossible, even the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X teaches:
[quote]29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation [/quote]
Artical 9:29

Anyway: Ironmonk's Challenge is to proove that the consensus of the ECFs contradict current Catholic Teaching.

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.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairygirl, I believe that I can explain with clarity the thrust of the challenge. Of course, Ironmonk, Al, if I am wrong, please correct me:

A super brief, super concise synopsis of magisterial infallibility:
There are 3 normative modes through which the Church teaches infallibly.

1.) [i]ex cathedra[/i] statements by the Pope. A statement can be known as being ex cathedra if the Pope is speaking definitively on matters of faith and morals in a manner of accordance with his teaching office. (example from the early church: St. Pope Leo the Great: [i]On the Anniversary of his Elevation to the Pontificate: Sermon III[/i], section 4, beginning "When therefore we utter...")

2.) [i]De Fide[/i] statements of the Councils (assuming the council is in communion with Rome). A de fide statement is also clear and definitive on matters of faith and morals, as the ex cathedra statement described above, however, rather than being issued by the Pope, it is issued by the bishops present at the council, who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

3.) Church teachings are also considered infallible even if they have not been defined in either of the above two methods if it meets the following parameters: It must be taught unanimously by all bishops in communion with the Holy Father, spread across the world. Thus, it would be incorrect to site Arian writings, even when it was at its height, for no Pope was ever an Arian, and all who espoused it were heretics, as was made clear at the Council of Nicea.


So dairygirl, this is the challenge being put forth to you:

If you are able to find even one teaching that was taught infallibly in the early church but is now contradicted by an infallible statement of the current Magisterium, you will have proven that the current Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ built.

Feel free to use the links and sources that Ironmonk and Al have provided, for they will be great aids in your research.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[dairygirl4u2c]

I remember some sumo wrestlers going at it and one of them saying something to the effect "the pope has only spoken ex cathedra two times!". (that's where I get my info, cheesy apologetic pictures) And the assumption and the immaculate conception seem to be two, which leaves your example Jeff unclear to me.

My sumo friends must be wrong.



The ex cathedra and the counsils should be easy enough to find since it is black and white. But I'm not capable, I admit it. Can someone help me find the them?

And I might guess to start with encyclicals from popes (and bishops if they have "encyclicals"?) but does anyone else know how to find the third example?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 9 2004, 01:44 AM'] I remember some sumo wrestlers going at it and one of them saying something to the effect "the pope has only spoken ex cathedra two times!". (that's where I get my info, cheesy apologetic pictures) And the assumption and the immaculate conception seem to be two, which leaves your example Jeff unclear to me.

My sumo friends must be wrong.



The ex cathedra and the counsils should be easy enough to find since it is black and white. But I'm not capable, I admit it. Can someone help me find the them?

And I might guess to start with encyclicals from popes (and bishops if they have "encyclicals"?) but does anyone else know how to find the third example? [/quote]
awww!!! I remember that picture, that was awesome!!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 9 2004, 12:30 AM'] I explained that I was simplifying it for you.

Ironmonk's challenge is basically show the consensus of the Church Fathers opposing current Catholic Teaching. Because the Church Fathers are the Church's first bishops, so if they all have consensus on a teaching they are infallible. but I [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17514"]simplified it for you[/url] to make it so you only had to get ONE quote from the Early Church and ONE quote from the Catechism. the second part of Ironmonk's challenge requires you get ONE quote from the Catechism and MULTIPLE quotes from VARIOUS ECF's that all contradict the Catechism. [/quote]
The thing I don't like about this is that it seems too much like protestant verse slanging.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 9 2004, 02:55 AM'] The thing I don't like about this is that it seems too much like protestant verse slanging. [/quote]
i don't get it... i said that she can proove the Catholic Church wrong if she quotes one of the early councils I listed and shows it contradicting any of the Catechisms i listed...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 9 2004, 02:11 AM'] i don't get it... i said that she can proove the Catholic Church wrong if she quotes one of the early councils I listed and shows it contradicting any of the Catechisms i listed... [/quote]
that's cool. I guess my apprehension stems from the fact that such an approach doesn't take into account the complexity involved in such things. The catechetical tradition is distinct from the theological tradition and these are distinct from Sacred Tradition as such, although obviously these are all interconnected etc..
I just get unconfortable when one approaches Divine Revelation, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, with a kind of propositional attitude that fosters the fundamentalist mentality. I think this approach toward Scripture and Tradition has helped turn many good Catholics into protestants and sedevacantists.

Shucks, I'm actually not condemning anything that you've said so far, because practically speaking, you've got to start somewhere. I'm just trying to explain more of what I meant, although now I with I'd have kept it to myself.

[Aloysius]

i'm just tryin to help dairygirl try to disproove the Church... lol... because i know she can't do it. i'm refining the sources she should look to to those which are infallible. if she quotes something out of context, that's the time to correct her by showing the context

[dairygirl4u2c]

Then you guys still need to answer this post. It can't be that hard.

[quote]I remember some sumo wrestlers going at it and one of them saying something to the effect "the pope has only spoken ex cathedra two times!". (that's where I get my info, cheesy apologetic pictures) And the assumption and the immaculate conception seem to be two, which leaves your example Jeff unclear to me.

My sumo friends must be wrong. 



The ex cathedra and the counsils should be easy enough to find since it is black and white. But I'm not capable, I admit it. Can someone help me find the them?

And I might guess to start with encyclicals from popes (and bishops if they have "encyclicals"?) but does anyone else know how to find the third example? [/quote]

In fact I'm going to make this a challenge to the phatmassers.

[Aloysius]

here, so u don't make ironmonk mad by hijacking his thread

[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]

[Aloysius]

now, what I want to clarify from you:

do you need prooved that they had the Eucharist and believed in transubstantiation?
that they had a visible structure just like today's Catholic Church?
that they trusted councils of the bishops with the bishop of rome and being authoritative and binding?
that they had a devotion to Mary?
that they trusted the Church to teach them what the Bible really meant?
that they considered the Bishops successors to the Apostles?
that they believed what was said by a council and opposed anyone who made a doctrine contrary to what the council defined?
that they were all of one accord on doctrine and would not tolerate difference of doctrine being in the same Church?

or do you want me to only proove that the Bishop of Rome was considered the successor to St. Peter and not just a really influential bishop? he was the most influential bishop because people considered him the successor to St. Peter, but if that's ALL you want me to prove, let me ask you this: are you considering Eastern Orthodoxy? because if I can't prove that one specific detail, then to you the only two possible Churches this early Church could be is the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, because all the other stuff can be prooven and the only Churches today that share those common traits with the early Church are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox

[dairygirl4u2c]

The eastern orthodox is a good way to look into the way things were done to an extent. The fact that you can't prove the papacy to them says something, and I think it's more than just them being stubborn. And yes if you can prove the papacy then you've made your case.

I don't know for sure, maybe ya'll do:
Do they pray to mary?
They have confession right? (confession is one of the sacraments that I don't see much evidence for until later)



[quote]do you need prooved that they had the Eucharist and believed in transubstantiation?
that they had a visible structure just like today's Catholic Church?
that they trusted councils of the bishops with the bishop of rome and being authoritative and binding?
that they had a devotion to Mary?
that they trusted the Church to teach them what the Bible really meant?
that they considered the Bishops successors to the Apostles?
that they believed what was said by a council and opposed anyone who made a doctrine contrary to what the council defined?
that they were all of one accord on doctrine and would not tolerate difference of doctrine being in the same Church?[/quote]

Perhaps we can look into the Eucharist.. again.

But I'm sure they had devotion to Mary, trusted the chruch, considered the bishops successors, and all the stuff you mentioned. I would question the way in which they did all those. Like, devotion to Mary didn't include the assumption or praying to her, trusting the bishops as successors.. what does successor mean? (incidentally did they even believe the apostles were infallible?) I'm sure they knew the holy spirit was transferred, but does that mean in the infallible sense?

Edited August 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c