Early Church

[dairygirl4u2c]

It's kinda funny Ironmonk asks if I was in special education right after posting something that proves nothing.

Here is the main point of his post:

[quote]For he goes on to say: "It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us."(2) He allows me, therefore, without losing the right of communion, not only to continue inquiring into the truth, but even to hold opinions differing from his own. "For no one of us," he says, "setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying." What could be more kind? what more humble? Surely there is here no authority restraining us from inquiry into what is truth. "Inasmuch as every bishop," he says, "in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another,"--that is, I suppose, in those questions which have not yet been brought to perfect clearness of solution; for he knew what a deep question about the sacrament was then occupying the whole Church with every kind of disputation, and gave free liberty of inquiry to every man, that the truth might be made known by investigation. For he was surely not uttering what was false, and trying to catch his simpler colleagues in their speech, so that, when they should have betrayed that they held opinions at variance with his, he might then propose, in violation of his promise, that they should be excommunicated. Far be it from a soul so holy to entertain such accursed treachery; indeed, they who hold such a view about such a man, thinking that it conduces to his praise, do but show that it would be in accordance with their own nature. I for my part will in no wise believe that Cyprian, a Catholic bishop, a Catholic martyr, whose greatness only made him proportionately humble in all things, so as to find favor before the Lord,(1) should ever, especially in the sacred Council of his colleagues, have uttered with his mouth what was not echoed in his heart, especially as he further adds, "But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein."(2) When, then, he called to their remembrance so solemn a judgment, hoping to hear the truth from his colleagues, would he first set them the example of lying? May God avert such madness from every Christian man, and how much more from Cyprian! We have therefore the free liberty of inquiry granted to us by the most moderate and most truthful speech of Cyprian.[/quote]

Augustine was a Catholic in the sense that the Church should be one and in communion dispite disagreements. He talks about Cyprians humility in that he too follows this train of thought. They were both "Catholic" because this was how the Church was set up then. **(even as evidenced by Ironmonks own quote)**He never mentions anything above the bishop of rome other than his prominent position and he would not be kosher with the claims of the papacy of today. Especially considering the extent of Augustine's writings which show nothing of the claims of the papacy of today. And I strongly encourage you to show otherwise.

If anything you are disproving your own point. If you wish to hold any thread of accusing me of being in special education, you tell me, what's your point?

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 12:15 PM']

I'll try google the best I know how, but does anyone know how to find these letters from cyprian online? I have a question regarding the "...." that left words out in this quote:
[/quote]
actually I found it. I have put the parts from your quote in italics:

[quote]And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' [John 21:17]. On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; [i]and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reasons for that unity. Indeed the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.[/i] So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to the unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? [i]If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was build, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?[/i]" - Cyprian, De ecclesiae catholicae unitatae 4
[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

Laud,
I'm not sure where it's at cuz that excerpt didn't quote it! But his might be it: Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition AD 251

I think these two quotes go together since they end in the same way:

[quote]"Certainly the rest were as Peter was, primacy is given to Peter and one Church and one chair is shown:and they are all shepherds, but one flock is exhibited, which is fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent. And he who does not hold this unity of his Church, does he think he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?"[/quote]

[quote]'And though he give equal authoritative power to all the Apostles, still He instituted a single chair an by his own authority established the source[origo] and rationale of unity. The other Apostles were what Peter was but a 'primacy' is given to Peter so that a single Church and a single chair may be visibly set forth....He who deserts this chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he trust that he is in the Church?'[/quote]


Edit: okay nevermind

Something I found on Newman that discredits the fact that a smart guy like him would convert. (and why dudes like Augustine and Cyprian were in the CC of those days) During those times, the pope was not considered "infallible". I saw that mentioned when a catholic apologist was paralleling how he doesn't think Mary should be considered Mediatrix as doctrine with how Newman didn't think think the Pope should be claiming infallibility. So I'm not sure if Newman believed it or not. (maybe some help?) I'm left hanging, but it seems that if he were like Augustine, he would have only been Catholic not for infallibility but for unity.

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

..

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 04:37 PM'] Laud,
I'm not sure where it's at cuz that excerpt didn't quote it! But his might be it: Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition AD 251

I think these two quotes go together since they end in the same way:






Edit: okay nevermind

Something I found on Newman that discredits the fact that a smart guy like him would convert. (and why dudes like Augustine and Cyprian were in the CC of those days) During those times, the pope was not considered "infallible". I saw that mentioned when a catholic apologist was paralleling how he doesn't think Mary should be considered Mediatrix as doctrine with how Newman didn't think think the Pope should be claiming infallibility. So I'm not sure if Newman believed it or not. (maybe some help?) I'm left hanging, but it seems that if he were like Augustine, he would have only been Catholic not for infallibility but for unity. [/quote]
are you sure dairygirl?? You posted this:

'And though he give equal authoritative power to all the Apostles, still He instituted a single chair an by his own authority established the source[origo] and rationale of unity. The other Apostles were what Peter was but a 'primacy' is given to Peter so that a single Church and a single chair may be visibly set forth....He who deserts this chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he trust that he is in the Church?'

and asked about the "...." in the middle of the quote. I quoted the whole thing with the preceding sentence as well as the content that was skipped over in the "....", what else were you looking for?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 04:37 PM'] Something I found on Newman that discredits the fact that a smart guy like him would convert. (and why dudes like Augustine and Cyprian were in the CC of those days) During those times, the pope was not considered "infallible". I saw that mentioned when a catholic apologist was paralleling how he doesn't think Mary should be considered Mediatrix as doctrine with how Newman didn't think think the Pope should be claiming infallibility. So I'm not sure if Newman believed it or not. (maybe some help?) I'm left hanging, but it seems that if he were like Augustine, he would have only been Catholic not for infallibility but for unity. [/quote]
Well dairygirl, there is a lot of crrrap out there. Loads of it actually.
The issues regarding the definition of Papal infallibility are complex to say "Newman didn't think the Pope should be claiming infallibility" is, I think misleading and false. Also the guy who said that Mary as Mediatrix should not be considered doctrine doesn't know what he's talking about. It already is doctrine. It's a part of Sacred, Apostolic Tradition, and it's been taught definitively and repeatedly by the Church's Magisterium.

Here is some werds on Newman and infallibility:

[quote]Some have claimed that John Henry Cardinal Newman denied the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. In actuality, he was an inopportunist, that is, one who (at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870) favored waiting to dogmatically define the definition of papal infallibility (for fear of the Ultramontane party and their ideas and devices). This is a completely different proposition from acceptance or non-acceptance of some form of infallibility. The following is from Ian Ker's John Henry Newman: A Biography, probably the most comprehensive and scholarly recent biography of Newman (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988, 764 pages):

Newman himself would continue to pray that there was no definition, but he would accept it if one was passed......

Although the Council would be protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, it was not divinely prevented from acting inopportunely. Even that eventuality, however, Newman could believe must be in the long run be expedient in God's Providence, however inexpedient it might seem at the time.....

On 23 July Newman saw the definition of papal infallibility which had been passed five days earlier. He was 'pleased at its moderation'; the 'terms used' were 'vague and comprehensive', and he personally had no difficulty in accepting it......

'If the definition is eventually received by the whole body of the faithful.......then too it will claim our assent by the force of the great dictum, Securus judicat orbis terrarum.' After all, 'the general acceptance, judgment of Christendom' was not only 'the broad principle by which all acts of the rulers of the Church are ratified', but also 'the ultimate guarantee of revealed truth'................

He was sure that it was divine intervention which had prevented the extyreme Ultramontanes, including the Pope, from getting through a much stronger definition. it was a pity that Dollinger and others persisted in exaggerating what actually had been defined, however scandalous the proceedings. but it was not the first scandal at a Council, and good would come out of it.......

Newman could not accept the validity of his [i.e., Dollinger's] arguments against the actual definition. Even if the supporting Scripture texts were not convincing (as Newman thought they were), this did not affect the truth of the actual decisions of a Council, which alone were guaranteed.......

He continued to think Dollinger 'wrong in making the worst of the definition instead of making the best.' It was simply playing into the hands of the extremists to exaggerate the terms of the definition, which in fact had been a 'defeat' for the Ultramontanes......

He diagnosed Dollinger's crisis as fundamentally a failure of imagination......'He ties you down like Shylock to the letter of the bond, instead of realizing what took place as a scene.' Newman could not understand how Dollinger could accept the Council of Ephesus, for example, which was notorious for intrigue and violence, and not the recent one.......

'The more one examines the Councils, the less satisfactory they are.....[but] the less satisfactory they, the more majestic and trust-winning, and the more imperatively necessary, is the action of the Holy See.'.......

Newman also wrote to the Guardian sharply denying the allegation of J.M. Capes that he did not really believe in papal infallibility, and citing a number of passages in his writings, beginning with the Essay on Development, for more or less explicit avowals of the doctrine...... "As regards the relation between history and theology, Newman is unequivocal in his criticism of Dollinger and his followers......'I think them utterly wrong in what they have done and are doing; and, moreover, I agree as little in their view of history as in their acts.' It is not a matter of questioning the accuracy of their historical knowledge, but 'their use of the facts they report' and 'that special stand-point from which they view the relations existing between the records of History and the communications of Popes and Councils.' Newman sums up the essence of the problem: 'They seem to me to expect from History more than History can furnish.' The opposite was true of the Ultramontanes, who simply found history an embarrassing inconvenience.......

But he wondered why 'private judgment' should 'be unlawful in interpreting Scripture against the voice of authority, and yet be lawful in the interpretation of history?'...........No Catholic doctrine could be fully proved (or, for that matter, disproved) by historical evidence - 'in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church.' Indeed, anyone 'who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic.'

{from chapter 17: "Papal Infallibility," pp.652, 654-5, 660-1, 665, 671-3, 684
[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

Laud,
Ah, sorry about the confusion!

This quote from me was for you:
[quote]Edit: okay nevermind 
[/quote]


Thank you for fixing getting that for me laud! I posted that post right after you posted yours!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 05:01 PM'] Laud,
Ah, sorry about the confusion!

This quote from me was for you:



Thank you for fixing getting that for me laud! I posted that post right after you posted yours! [/quote]
Haha! T'saw good.. I hope the quotes and things have helped.
Something that makes sense to me regarding Papal infallibility (besides the fact that I think the nature of the Church and Christ's promises strongly support it), is the fact that in the old covenant the high priest could speak infallibly under certain conditions. For example way back in the OT they had the Urim and Thumin (sp?), and in the NT it talks about the high priest being able to prophesy because he was high priest that year. (When he says that Christ would die for the people). So if the OT guys had a special charism whereby they could utter infallible things why not the Pope? It's not a proof per se but when I thought about it a long time ago it made a lot of sense to me.

[dairygirl4u2c]

It very much appears that augustine and cyprian was not a catholic the way it is understood. But as for Newman:

[quote]On 23 July Newman saw the definition of papal infallibility which had been passed five days earlier. He was 'pleased at its moderation'; the 'terms used' were 'vague and comprehensive', and he personally had no difficulty in accepting it......

'If the definition is eventually received by the whole body of the faithful.......then too it will claim our assent by the force of the great dictum, Securus judicat orbis terrarum.' After all, 'the general acceptance, judgment of Christendom' was not only 'the broad principle by which all acts of the rulers of the Church are ratified', but also 'the ultimate guarantee of revealed truth'................

He was sure that it was divine intervention which had prevented the extyreme Ultramontanes, including the Pope, from getting through a much stronger definition.[/quote]

Is it just inspiration and "converging and convincing" arguments and inspiration in a general sense? So what exactly is Newman's take on "infalliblity"? And is the CC's teaching on infallibility not as strict as its made out to be?

I'll need to study the development of infalliblity to see how this era played out. :ph34r:

Edited March 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

It appears that Newman believed in infallibility, but didn't think it should be defined in the sense that someone would have to believe it. (cuz c'mon what proof is there if you were a Catholic but didn't believe in infallibility)

[quote]Newman's position in 1867 is clearly stated in a letter to Pusey in that year:

"A man will find it a religious duty to believe it, or may safely disbelieve it, in proportion as he thinks it probable or improbable that the Church might or will define it, or does hold it, and that it is the doctrine of the Apostles. For myself...I think that the Church may define it (i.e. it possibly may turn out to belong to the original depositum), but that she will not ever define it; and again I do not see that she can be said to hold it. She never can simply act upon it (being undefined, as it is), and I believe never has -- moreover, on the other hand, I think there is a good deal of evidence, on the very surface of history and the Fathers, in its favour. On the whole then I hold it: but I should account it no sin if, on the grounds of reason, I doubted it." [19]

"For myself, I have never taken any great interest in the question of the limits and seat of infallibility. I was converted simply because the Church was to last to the end, and that no communion answered to the Church of the first ages but the Roman Communion, both in substantial likeness and in actual descent. And as to faith, my great principle was: 'securus judicat orbis terrarum.' So I say now -- and in all these questions of detail I say to myself, I believe whatever the Church teaches as the voice of God -- and this or that particular inclusively, if she teaches this -- it is this fides implicita which is our comfort in these irritating times. And I cannot go beyond this -- I see arguments here, arguments there -- I incline one way today another tomorrow -- on the whole I more than incline in one direction -- but I do not dogmatise....I have only an opinion at best (not faith) that the Pope is infallible." [20]

In the following year (1868) we find him writing to a Mr. Renouf, who had published a pamphlet on the case of Pope Honorius, as follows: "I hold the Pope's Infallibility, not as a dogma, but as a theological opinion; that is, not as a certainty, but as a probability."

When the Vatican Council actually came to define the Pope's infallibility, the exaggerations of the neo-Ultramontanes [those who taught that the doctrine was declaring that everything a Pope said ever (not faith and morals) was infallible]were "definitely rejected." [21] And on seeing the test of the definition Newman was able to write to a friend: "I saw the new definition yesterday and am pleased at its moderation -- that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all."

And on August 8th he wrote to Mrs. Froude:
"As I have ever believed as much as the definition says, I have a difficulty in putting myself into the position of mind of those who have not....I very much doubt if at this moment -- before the end of the Council, I could get myself publicly to say it was de fide, whatever came of it -- though I believe the doctrine itself." [22]

It had been alleged that it was understood at one time that Newman "was on the point of uniting with Dr. Dollinger and his party [those ultradontasts] who refused to submit to the Vatican definition, "and that it required the earnest persuasion of 'several bishops' to prevent him from taking that step: Newman responded --

"...an unmitigated and most ridiculous untruth in every word of it... On July 24, 1870, I wrote as follows: 'I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation...The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it....' Also I wrote as follows to a friend: (July 27, 1870) '...for myself, ever since I was a Catholic, I have held the Pope's infallibility as a matter of theological opinion; at least, I see nothing in the Definition which necessarily contradicts Scripture, Tradition, or History....'" [/quote]

It appears that Newman believed in infallibilty just because it "made sense" but not to force it. I wonder if there's anything Newman is missing (constantine issues or leo issues). And I wonder what Newman would have taught if people started asking him to believe that people who didn't agree would go to hell.

Again, I still need to research the development of this doctrine to see if this ever had the chance to happen. :ph34r:

Edited March 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2004, 06:01 PM'] It appears that Newman believed in infallibility, but didn't think it should be defined in the sense that someone would have to believe it. (cuz c'mon what proof is there if you were a Catholic but didn't believe in infallibility)



It appears that Newman believed in infallibilty just because it "made sense" but not to force it. I wonder if there's anything Newman is missing (constantine issues or leo issues). And I wonder what Newman would have taught if people started asking him to believe that people who didn't agree would go to hell.

Again, I still need to research the development of this doctrine to see if this ever had the chance to happen.  :ph34r: [/quote]
[quote]I wonder if there's anything Newman is missing (constantine issues or leo issues). And I wonder what Newman would have taught if people started asking him to believe that people who didn't agree would go to hell. [/quote]
Newman's familiarity with the Fathers and understanding of the history and dynamics of the early Church are staggering. He is one of the greatest minds of modern times. I highly doubt that Newman was unfamiliar with Constantine issues of Leo issues. And I'm not sure what you mean about people going to hell for disagreeing? Who says that? It's a dogma not an opinion so to deny it is not merely to disagree, it is to reject the Catholic Faith. Since there is no salvation outside the Church the relation of dogmatic decrees to salvation could be discussed, but I'm sure you know enough about these issues to know that persons aren't damned for disbelieving particular propositions.

And dairygirl, I thought you might enjoy this page:
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ22.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ22.HTM[/url]
It's got tons of links to sweet stuff about Newman.

Edited March 9, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]It's a dogma not an opinion so to deny it is not merely to disagree, it is to reject the Catholic Faith. [/quote]

Yes it is to disagree with the Catholic faith of today. It could be argued, and I think pretty rationally (and as Newman said even with reason) that it is not rejecting the Catholic faith of the days of yore when people had communion with each other dispite their differences. So if the days or yore are correct, the CC of today is the cause of disunity instead of unity.


You are probably right that he knew about all those issues. But it looks like he was a Catholic just because he liked the idea of it.

[Archangel]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 9 2004, 07:36 AM']
Yes it is to disagree with the Catholic faith of today. It could be argued, and I think pretty rationally (and as Newman said even with reason) that it is not rejecting the Catholic faith of the days of yore when people had communion with each other dispite their differences. So if the days or yore are correct, the CC of today is the cause of disunity instead of unity.
[/quote]
Your first sentence is saying that there was communion, or unity, among peoples of times past because they did not reject the Catholic faith.

So, if those people had rejected the Catholic faith, then there would have been no communion, or unity.

This is the real cause of disunity today. It is not because of the Catholic Church. It is because people reject the Catholic faith.

Therefore, if we wish to return to the "days of your when people had communion with each other despite their differences", we must return to the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is found in the Catholic Church.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I want to clarify my quote:
[quote]But it looks like he was a Catholic just because he liked the idea of it. [/quote]

to:
[quote]But it looks like he believed in infallibity just because he liked the idea of it.[/quote]




[quote]Therefore, if we wish to return to the "days of your when people had communion with each other despite their differences", we must return to the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is found in the Catholic Church. [/quote]

Isn't that contradictory? If the catholic faith of the olden days was about being in communion with each other despite our differences, how is being a member of a Church that allows no differences going to get us to the olden days?

[IcePrincessKRS]

The Catholic Church then is the same Church it is now.