You probably saw this same phenomenon in the Lyceum thread. Calvinist has very firm beliefs about exactly what Catholics believe and why they believe it. He does not hesitate to tell us exactly what we believe and why we believe it, and he utterly refuses to listen when we tell him he's wrong about that. (After all, what do we know?) So his attributing a strategy to you here before you've employed it...that's just par for the course.

I'm restricting him to this forum.

I know it because we have manuscript evidence to support it, and because the early church declared it.



I'm sorry if you don't like my answer, but I think it's a perfectly valid point. You and the others here point at the early church and state that it was the catholic church. That's a fallacy called "begging the question". You have not established that point.



What tradition? Do you mean the writings and teachings of their contemporaries?



I think it's a valid concern. You have yet to make the case. I'm challenging you to do this if you're going to use this argument.



No...it really isn't. But again...you make the assertion, so it's up to you to prove it.


They aren't "denominations". They are heretical heterodoxes. The Trinity is an essential doctrine. If you deny it, you are not a Christian.



Prove it.

What teachings would those be? Can you give me a quote from a church council?
[/quote]

sigh. Did you not read my post either? I have not said you gave a "fuzzy quote".



You can't answer me so you censor me? Wow....

BTW, this seems to keep getting overlooked.

Please document your answer.



You didn't answer my question at all. You are being dishonest.



St. Ignatius of Antioch is an Apostolic Father. His writings call the Church the Catholic Church.



What tradition were you talking about?

Holy Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition. How can it not be?



You made the claim that the Catholic Church of today is not the same as the early Church. I think you should prove your case first and show us exactly how your church is the same as the early church and show us your unbroken history back to Pentecost. History makes my case for me. No church other than the Catholic Church can trace their history back to Pentecost, so you start out at a marked disadvantage. I don't blame you for not wanting to attempt such a task.



You haven't proven your own assertions, so why should I?



Where do you find that in the Bible? Please cite the book(s) and verse(s).



Any council which defined the doctrines of the Church was a Catholic council. Name the ones you are referring to and I'll show you.

How about including my original response in your response so that I don't have to open another tab to search for whatever it is you are responding to.



Those would be the teachings on Purgatory and the Eucharist.



Purgatory - Council of Florence and Council of Trent

The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).

I'm not going to get into the proofs for Purgatory in this thread. You can find dozens of threads on Purgatory on this board. I suggest you look them up or refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia for more information.

Eucharist - First Council of Nicea, Council of Trent XIII

We can see from St. Ignatius of Antioch that the Eucharist was part of the early liturgy.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again"
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89



I asked you for an example of what would constitute a fuzzy quote since you claim that Catholics often offer them. If you know that Catholics often offer fuzzy ECF quotes, then you should be able to provide an example of a Catholic offering a fuzzy ECF quote. I don't know how to make it any simpler for your level of understanding.



How is restricting you to this forum censoring you? The fact is that Catholicism 101 and The Lyceum and Solesmes are for Catholics and those sincerely inquiring into the Catholic faith. I don't believe that you fit either description.

I'd post to CARM but you don't like that site. How about www.bible.org





And now you're resorting to an ad hominem.


St. Ignatius of Antioch is an Apostolic Father. His writings call the Church the Catholic Church.


[/quote]
Likewise, the Nicene creed says we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. Now prove to me that the Roman Catholic church of today can claim to be that church.



I don't claim that there was a singular organization that goes back to Pentecost.


Church councils decided that. Unfortunately, your church has strayed from those days.



How about Nicea? Chalcedon?

If I don't pare out some quotes it gets real confusing.

[/quote]Can you give me a quote from a church council?
As you might expect, I reject Trent.

I reject that. I believe Ignatius was wrong on that point. There were others that suggest that Ignatius was a modalist. Do you accept his teachings on that?

In any event, I ascribe to the Nicene Creed.


Your post above about Ignatius illustrates it. You gave a quote that supposedly proves transubstantiationism. Are you willing to hold to everything Ignatius said?

You're not the only person who reads the Bible, I've read it from cover to cover at least once a year since my junior year of high school...

Moreover, we have people here who have actual degrees in theology and Biblical studies, they could wipe the floor with you on Bible knowledge

Reading the Bible doesn't actually make you special and it doesn't grant you any particular authortiy

Nobody said anything about Transubstantiation that I noticed. Siggy posted a quotation from St. Ignatius--who was ordained by St. John the Evangelist--on the Eucharist, and you flatly rejected it. Upshot: St. Ignatius's teaching is consistent with what Catholics believe, and inconsistent with what you believe. Your response is to make a vague suggestion that perhaps there's something in St. Ignatius that would make us Catholics nervous. Well, let's have it, then. Give us the quotations that we're not gonna like. Let's see them, and deal with them. How about that?

I'm not going to go back and search for the comment to which you are responding. As it stands, I have no idea what you are referring to.





I'm resorting to calling a spade a spade.



The following is a chronological view of the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations that broke away from the common thread of the Catholic Church. There can be only one true Church and history points squarely at the Catholic Church.

First period

Origin and Development of the Church in the ancient Græco-Roman world (from the birth of Christ to the close of the seventh century).

(a) First Epoch: Foundation, expansion and formation of the Church despite the oppression of the pagan-Roman state (from Christ to the Edict of Milan, 313).
(b) Second Epoch: The Church in close connexion with the Christian-Roman Empire (from the Edict of Milan to the Trullan Synod, 692).

Second period

The Church as the guide of the Western nations (from the close of the seventh century to the beginning of the sixteenth).

(a) First Epoch: The popes in alliance with the Carlovingians, decadence of religious life in the West, isolation of the Byzantine Church and its final rupture with Rome (Trullan Synod to Leo IX, 1054).
(b) Second Epoch: Interior reformation of ecclesiastical life through the popes, the Crusades, flourishing of the religious life and sciences, acme of the ecclesiastical and political power of the papacy (from 1054 to Boniface VIII, 1303).
(c) Third Epoch: Decline of the ecclesiastical and political power of the papacy; decay of religious life and outcry for reforms (from 1303 to Leo X, 1521).

Third period

The Church after the collapse of the religious unity in the West, struggle against heresy and infidelity, expansion in non-European countries (from beginning of sixteenth century to our own age).

(a) First Epoch: Origin and expansion of Protestantism; conflict with that heresy and reformation of ecclesiastical life (from 1521 to Treaty of Westphalia, 1648).
(b) Second Epoch: Oppression of the Church by state-absolutism, weakening of religious life through the influence of a false intellectual emancipation (from 1648 to the French Revolution, 1789).
(c) Third Epoch: Oppression of the Church by the Revolution; renewal of ecclesiastical life struggling against infidelity; progress of missionary activity (from 1789).

As regards the methodical treatment of the subject-matter within the principal divisions, most writers endeavour to treat the main phases of the internal and external history of the Church in such a manner as to secure a logical arrangement throughout each period. Deviations from this method are only exceptional, as when Darras treats each pontificate separately. This latter method is, however, somewhat too mechanical and superficial, and in the case of lengthy periods it becomes difficult to retain a clear grasp of the facts and to appreciate their interconnexion. Recent writers, therefore, aim at such a division of the matter within the different periods as will lay more stress on the important forms and expressions of ecclesiastical life (Moeller, Muller, Kirsch in his revision of Hergenröther). The larger periods are divided into a number of shorter epochs, in each of which the most important event or situation in the history of the Church stands out with distinctness, other phases of ecclesiastical life — including the ecclesiastical history of the individual countries — being treated in connexion with this central subject. The subject-matter of each period thus receives a treatment at once chronological and logical, and most in keeping with the historical development of the events portrayed. The narrative gains in lucidity and artistic finish, within the shorter periods the historical material is more easily grasped, while the active forces in all great movements appear in bolder relief. It is true that this method involves a certain inequality in the treatment of the various phases of ecclesiastical life, but the same inequality already existed in the historical situation described.
Sources of ecclesiastical history

Historical sources are those human products which were either originally intended, or which — on account of their existence, origin, and other conditions — are preeminently fitted, to furnish knowledge and evidence of historical facts. The sources of ecclesiastical history are therefore whatever things, either because of their object or of other circumstances, can throw light on the facts that make up the ecclesiastical life of the past. These sources fall naturally into two classes:

(A) Remains (reliquiœ, Ueberreste) or immediate sources, i.e. such as prove a fact directly, being themselves part or remnant of the fact. To this class belong remains in the narrower sense of the word, e.g. liturgical customs, ecclesiastical institutions, acts of the popes and councils, art-products etc.; also monuments set up to commemorate events, e.g. inscriptions.
(B) Tradition or mediate sources, i.e. such as rest upon the statements of witnesses who communicate an event to others. Tradition may be oral (narrative and legends), written (writings of particular authors), or pictorial (pictures, statues).

The critical treatment of the two kinds of sources differs. It is usually sufficient to prove the authenticity and integrity of "remains" in order to establish the validity of their evidence. In dealing with tradition, on the other hand, it must be proved that the author of the source in question deserves credit, also that it was possible for him to know the fact. The sources are further divided:

(a) according to their origin, into divine (the canonical sacred writings) and human (all other sources);
(b) according to the position of the author, into public (such as originated from an official person or magistrate, e.g. papal writings, decrees of councils, pastoral letters of bishops, rules of orders etc.) and private (such as come from a person holding no public office, or from an official in his private capacity, e.g. biographies, works of ecclesiastical writers, private letters etc.);
(c) according to the religion of the author, into domestic (of Christian origin) and foreign (i.e. written by non-Christians);
(d) according to the manner of transmission, into written (inscriptions, public acts, writings of all kinds) and unwritten (monuments, art-products stories, legends etc.).

The aforesaid historical sources have in modern times been fully and critically investigated by numerous scholars and are now easily accessible to all in good editions. A very general outline of these sources will suffice here (see special articles in this Encyclopedia).
Remains

The remains of the Church's past, which give direct evidence of historical facts, are the following:

Inscriptions, i.e. texts written on durable material, which were either meant to perpetuate the knowledge of certain acts, or which describe the character and purpose of a particular object. The Christian inscriptions of different epochs and countries are now accessible in numerous collections.
Monuments erected for Christian purposes, especially tombs, sacred edifices, monasteries, hospitals for the sick and pilgrims; objects used in the liturgy or private devotions.
Liturgies, rituals, particularly liturgical books of various kinds, which were once used in Divine service.
Necrologies and confraternity-books used at the prayers and public services for the living and the dead.
Papal acts, Bulls and Briefs to a great extent edited in the papal "Bullaria", "Regesta", and special ecclesiastico-national collections.
Acts and decrees of general councils and of particular synods.
Collections of official decrees of Roman congregations, bishops, and other ecclesiastical authorities.
Rules of faith (Symbola fldei) drawn up for the public use of the Church, various collections of which have been made.
Official collections of ecclesiastical laws juridically obligatory for the whole Church.
Rules and constitutions of orders and congregations.
Concordats between the ecclesiastical and the secular power.
Civil laws since they often contain matters bearing on religion or of ecclesiastical interest.

Tradition

We speak here of those sources which rest on mere tradition, and which, unlike the remains, are themselves no part of the fact. They are:

(1) Collections of acts of the martyrs, of legends and lives of the saints.
(2) Collections of lives of the popes (Liber Pontificalis) and of bishops of particular Churches.
(3) Works of ecclesiastical writers, which contain information about historical events; to some extent all ecclesiastical literature belongs to this category.
(4) Ecclesiastico-historical works, which take on more or less the character of sources, especially for the time in which their authors lived.
(5) Pictorial representations (paintings, sculptures, etc.).

The foregoing are accessible in various collections, partly in editions of the works of particular authors (Fathers of the Church, theologians, historians), partly in historical collections which contain writings of different authors correlated in content, or all the traditional written sources for a given land.

There can be only one true Church, and that Church must be a singular organization going back to Pentecost. Christ didn't establish a bunch of churches, each teaching a different doctrine. See my chronology borrowed from the Catholic Encyclopedia.



That, again, is your undocumented opinion.

Nicea = Catholic.

First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)

The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).


Chalcedon = Catholic.

Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)

The Council of Chalcedon — 150 bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the Emperor Marcian — defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was excommunicated.

It is better to at least leave in what you are responding to, because I can't answer you if I don't know what that was, and break up your posts into smaller posts --- which is generally what I try to do, but did not in this case because I'm having to keep the window open and go back and forth between my computer, my business projects, and phone calls.

Upon what basis?

Which is simply your opinion and not the opinion of St. Ignatius and his mentor St. John.



I don't accept your word for it.



Catholic, but often adopted by Protestant denominations.



As gherkin points out, you asked for a quote from a Father on the Eucharist. That is what I gave to you. You have not shown any "fuzziness" pertaining to the quote. How exactly is it "fuzzy", and give your definition of "fuzzy".

Which is simply your opinion and not the opinion of St. Ignatius and his mentor St. John.



You gave me one quote from an ECF that you think proves the Eucharist was a universal belief. I'm sorry..I don't see that as definitive proof.

I can quote an ECF suggesting that Satan is going to be saved. Are you going to believe that?

Ignatius was John's disciple.




I gave you exactly what you asked for. You asked for A quote from A Father on Purgatory and one on the Eucharist. I didn't claim it proved anything. You asked for a quote on those two things because you didn't think any existed and that I couldn't provide any.



Go ahead. Do it. Quote one saying that...and give the context for it. I gave context and sources for my quotes, so I expect the same from you.

I know....strange, isn't it?



Gregory of Nyssa (330 – 394)
"A certain deception was indeed practised upon the Evil one, by concealing the Divine nature within the human; but for the latter, as himself a deceiver, it was only a just recompense that he should be deceived himself: the great adversary must himself at last find that what has been done is just and salutary, when he also shall experience the benefit of the Incarnation. He, as well as humanity, will be purged." (The Great Catechism, 26, newadvent.org/fathers/2908.htm)

No, because Ignatius taught what he was taught.



You got that from CARM, didn't you.

Dang, did those Protestants cut John 6 out of their Bibles now?

Yup. I'm sorry... I suppose I should have posted a link to the page. But I know you wouldn't appreciate that.