Early Church

[Archangel]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 9 2004, 11:52 AM']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?[/quote]
I thought you meant differences in ethnicity, location, language, socio-economic status, etc. The Catholic Church, meaning "universal", is open to people of all races, colors, social standing, and the like. It is our shared doctrine and beliefs that unites us as one, just as Jesus prayed that we be one.

Are you saying the Church should allow differences in doctrine and beliefs? If so, where would there be unity in that?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 9 2004, 03:52 PM'] 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? [/quote]
dairygirl,

Who ever said anything about getting back to the olden days? The Church changes through history and we aren't supposed to try to go back in time. And I don't know where you got the idea that the Church of today is not about communion in difference. Do you know how many different theological traditions there are? The fact that Dominicans and Franciscans can coexist in the Church is a small miracle. And I'm sure you know that Byzantine Theology differs in some pretty big ways from Roman Theology. Sure there is more dogma today then there was in the early Church so there is more that must be held, but this is not really a problem. And you seem to forget that doctrine develops organically, it does not spring up out of nowhere, so it's not like the Church suddenly springs dogmas on people and expects them to believe them. They are already teachings of the Church, parts of Sacred Tradition, which are raised to the highest level of doctrine.

I think you confuse the existence of dogmatic teachings with an absolute rigidity regarding every Theological question. This is hardly the case. I doubt you could even find two Cardinals in the Church who agree on everything. They all agree on dogma and definitive doctrines, lest they be heretics. And do you expect me to believe that this is foreign to the early Church? What were all the Councils and condemnations of heresy about? If anything they were perhaps more rigid and strict about such things. Read some of the ancient canons and edicts, they blast the heretics out of the water, no tolerance.

Also I don't like the insinuation that Newman converted because "he liked the idea of Catholicism". That's insulting actually. Do you know how much persecution and suffering Newman (and countless other converts) went through to become Catholic? As if he just liked the idea of it and that it was cool. I would suggest reading at least "The Essay of the Development of..." and the "Apologia pro vita sua" to know something of why Newman converted. Ultimately it was because it was God's will and he was being faithful to God despite the cost. It wasn't a curiosity or an intellectual fancy.

So anyway, the Church certainly does allow differences. The doctrines and dogmas of the Church establish the bounds of orthodoxy. They are just that, boundaries. So if something has not been defined and is in dispute it is acceptable to hold different views.

*poof!*

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Mar 9 2004, 07:33 PM'] Also I don't like the insinuation that Newman converted because "he liked the idea of Catholicism". That's insulting actually. Do you know how much persecution and suffering Newman (and countless other converts) went through to become Catholic? As if he just liked the idea of it and that it was cool. I would suggest reading at least "The Essay of the Development of..." and the "Apologia pro vita sua" to know something of why Newman converted. Ultimately it was because it was God's will and he was being faithful to God despite the cost. It wasn't a curiosity or an intellectual fancy.
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm with you LD.

I dislike this phrase as well,

[quote]It very much appears that augustine and cyprian was not a catholic the way it is understood. [/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong dairy, but I don't get why you seem to think that Augustine and Cyprian were not Catholic "the way it is understood." Are you sure [u][b]you[/b][/u] understand Catholicism the way we do, and the way Augustine and co. did?

[Laudate_Dominum]

yeah, I often get the impression that you have some false impression of Catholicism that you are weighing against things. Perhaps an impression of Catholicism based too much on anti-catholic propaganda? Maybe we could talk about it sometime?
peace.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I was hoping to avoid this discussion about "believed catholic just because.."

Like my clarification says above:
[quote]it looks like he believed in infallibity just because he liked the idea of it.[/quote]

Sure he had to go through a lot to accept catholocism. But why does the CC have to be infallible? Even Newman said this:

[quote]I think there is a good deal of evidence, on the very surface of history and the Fathers, in its (infallibility) favour. On the whole then I hold it: but I should account it no sin if, [i]on the grounds of reason[/i], I doubted it."[/quote]


If Augustine and Cyprian and company had any notion of the papacy of today, they would have said something about it, "the bishop or Rome has said this.. case closed" or sumthin, and Newman wouldn't be saying this. The surface of history favors people wanting to hold to unity, that is reasonable. Deeper into history, everytime the CC strengthens its claim on infallibility, its at controversial times. But of course what the controversy means is in the eye of the beholder.

So now a challenge for you. I can't find anything. But can you find the letters from Stephen to Cyprian or from Victor to the others? Why is it so hard to find these two documents but not Cyprians? Do you know how to go about finding them?

Edited March 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

dairygirl,

There is a distinction that would be helpful in this discussion. Namely that the early Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox, etc.. believe that the Church is infallible when teaching definitively, the issue is specifically whether the Pope, on his own, can make infallible decrees. The Orthodox have always considered the ecumenical councils to be infallible. As did the early Church, they had the authority to define dogmatically what was true. The office of the Papacy is a necessary part of a valid ecumenical Council, hence the Orthodox have had none since the schism. Infallibility is simply part of the nature of the Church.
I believe what Newman is talking about in that quote is not whether it is part of the Church's charism to teach infallibly (this is a given) but whether the Pope, apart from an ecumenical council, can define dogma.
When one is a Catholic they believe that the Church's teachings are true and infallible. The status and precise nature of Papal infallibility was not defined at the time so even if Newman rejected it this would not mean much. If rather, he had rejected it after it was defined he would be rejecting the Church's authority to teach in Christ's name (infallibly) and thus would no longer be Catholic. Of course this was not the case.

Edited March 10, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 9 2004, 08:46 PM'] So now a challenge for you. I can't find anything. But can you find the letters from Stephen to Cyprian or from Victor to the others? Why is it so hard to find these two documents but not Cyprians? Do you know how to go about finding them? [/quote]
If these letters exist in their entirety they may not be on the internet. You would have to refer to some extensive collection of patristic texts somewhere. They may not be translated into english, I don't know. I have a friend who is a patristics scholar and the texts he studies are from massive collections in latin and greek (and syriac).
I am sure that I have seen the Stephen -> Cyprian letter quoted in places. Not sure where though, maybe "Jesus, Peter and the Keys", my favorite book on the Papacy.

Oh, since you seem to be so interested in the Cyprian controversy maybe you would like this book:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809102609/qid=1078899416//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i6_xgl14/102-7594722-6627350?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846[/url]

The reviewers make some interesting statements:
[quote]
Many Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, like to refer to St. Cyprian of Carthage to prove their points either for or against the authority of the Papacy. It occurs to me that many of these apologists have not actually READ Cyprian! For those persons, and for all others interested in what he REALLY said and thought, read this scholarly translation of two of his more readily accessible works "The Lapsed" dealing with Christians who had broken under persecution, and "The Unity of the Catholic Church" dealing with his relationship as the bishop of a major city, with the Bishop of Rome. [edited by me for spelling and other mistakes]

Sometimes, Cyprian is eisegeted in such as fashion as to suggest that the North African church was independant of Rome. Those who make such suggestions have simply not read nor understood Cyprian in his entirety. While it is true that he was a man of strong passion and conviction -- and was not hesitant to criticize the Bishop of Rome -- Rome held his submission and his obedience -- even when he felt Rome was in error.

A lesson, perhaps, that modern-day Catholics might do well to emulate.[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

A little something that goes along with my second to last post:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm[/url]

peace.

[Donna]

"But why does the CC have to be infallible?"

Infallible means [i]"cannot fail". [/i]

If Christ's own Church isn't infallible, then we are all tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.

We would not know the voice of the Good Shepherd (via doctrine).

We would not recognize the false prophets.

St. Jude was in earnest for our salvation, that the faith "once delivered to the saints" be kept. There are many other passages in the NT, like those in the Book of Jude.

Dairygirl, do you hold that a secular holder of power can, by virtue of that office, pardon criminals?

We might both agree that this office [b]doesn't or cannot[/b] give that leader a certainty of arriving at the [b]truth[/b] of the matter (whether someone be not guilty of a crime - and hence, pardonable).

But 2 Thess says that all who follow the anti-christ perish [i]"because they [color=red]receive not the love of the truth [/color]that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe a lie. That all may be judged who have consented to iniquity."[/i]

Jesus is the Truth (the Way, the Truth and the Life).

Isn't it obvious that[b] His [/b]Church [b]would [/b]have to be infallible?

Would you agree that Truth Itself would have to have an infallible Church?

Edited March 10, 2004 by Donna

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The bishops of Gaul accordingly turned to Cyprian, and begged him to write to the pope. This the saint did in a letter which is our sole source of information regarding this affair [/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288a.htm[/url]


It appears that we do not have any sources unless you know something I don't.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 10 2004, 11:58 AM'] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288a.htm[/url]


It appears that we do not have any sources unless you know something I don't. [/quote]
Aww shucks. I hate it when that happens. If anyone here has ever read St. Athanasius' treatise on the Incarnation of the Word they know that it is one of the most profound texts out there. Well get this, I heard that he wrote it when he was a fairly young man, and near the end of his life, after decades of being a mystic and pondering the Mystery of Christ he wrote another treatise on the Incarnation of the Word that appearantly vastly trumped the earlier one! I can't even imagine that! And no copies of his second treatise have survived!
If only people would have done more to preserve the patristic writings.. *sigh*

Actually in this case I think it's largely Athanasius' fault because he was kind of strict about circulating it and wouldn't let people copy it because he felt it was so lofty and that people might not understand it.

Edited March 10, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum