[OLD REGGIE]

Regarding the opinions of "fathers" at variance with later Church teaching, the question I ask you is whether you are willing to let ANY authority decide between contending positions and THEN and ONLY THEN rule out other opinions, or do you insist on evaluating the fact situation and rendering a judgement yourself?

The important point James White was making is that at time of the Council of Niceae the "Catholic Church" was not the "Catholic Church of today.

There was no "Pope".
There was no "Primacy" accorded to the Bishop of Rome.
There was no doctrine of Purgatory.
There was no doctrine of Immaculate Conception.
There was no doctrine of Bodily Assumption.
There was no doctrine of Purgatory.

The Church might well have been catholic. It certainly wasn't Roman Catholic.

The question I ask you is are you willing to accept new teachings based on some magic belief that these truths were "always known" but hidden or clearly understood? Be aware that all these new inventions carry the RCC further away from the truth.

Another question. Are you prepared to accept, without reservation, an infallible pronouncement of the Co-Mediator/Mediatrix? (It is coming one day.

[JohnnyM]

don't forget Co-Redemptrix as well.

JM

[eastsider]

The important point James White was making is that at time of the Council of Niceae ... [t]here was no doctrine of Purgatory. There was no doctrine of Immaculate Conception. There was no doctrine of Bodily Assumption.

If you mean that there was no formal definition of these doctrines at the time of Nicaea, White is right. Formal definitions, like the christological and trinitarian formulae that came out of the great councils, are made in response to heresies that deny these particular teachings of the Church. The most one can conclude from there having been no formal definition of these teachings at the time of Nicaea is that no one had denied those teachings at the time of Nicaea, not that they didn't exist at that time. In this latter sense, then, White is mistaken.

[RobbyS]

The important point James White was making is that at time of the Council of Niceae the "Catholic Church" was not the "Catholic Church of today.

There was no "Pope". There was no "Primacy" accorded to the Bishop of Rome. There was no doctrine of Purgatory. There was no doctrine of Purgatory. There was no doctrine of Purgatory.

The Church might well have been catholic. P>.

There was no "Pope".

Well, there was a pope of Rome , a pope of Antioch, a pope of Alexandria. The question is what authority he had.

There was no "Primacy" accorded to the Bishop of Rome.

But a primacy was claimed by the pope of Rome, Pope Stephen in the 2nd Century. The Greek sees of course, were loathe to acknowledge it and countered the Roman claim by giving a different interpretation to the verse in Matthew. They didn't want to come under Roman jurisdiction. Such resistance was also found, by the way, from the French Church of the post-Reformation period. Cozy in their relationshion with the Crown, they ignored the popes as much as possible.

There was no doctrine of Purgatory.

WHICH doctrine of purgatory?The dogmatic teaching certainly lacks the embellishments that many Catholics associate with it. Dead Christians "enjoy' a temporary suffering; the suffrage of the Church in some fashion allievates it. Ambroasiater certainly taught something like this. If his was not the general opinion, his was certainly consistent with Catholic opinion in the 4th Century.

There was no doctrine of the Immaculate Conception There was certainly no formulation of it. The doctrine of "original" sin is Augustine's contribution to Christian thought. Are you saying that Augustine's opinion was not biblical?

There was no doctrine of the Assumption.

Blame the Greeks as well. They have the doctrine of the Dormition of Mary, which lends support to the 1950 proclamation of the dogma. Yes, I know they say they don't believe in the Assumption, but I am hard-pressed to tell the real difference between ours and theirs.

It certainly wasn't Roman Catholic.

The question I ask you is are you willing to accept new teachings based on some magic belief that these truths were "always known" but hidden or clearly understood? Be aware that all these new inventions carry the RCC further away from the truth.

Another question. Are you prepared to accept, without reservation, an infallible pronouncement of the Co-Mediator/Mediatrix? (It is coming one day The Marian dogmas are indeed "inventions" if you are willing to accept the archaic defintion of "find, finding-out, or discovery." Heck, the whole of the common law is based on such invention. The Immaculate Conception is something like a conflation of the teachings of the Virgin Birth, the incarnation, and of original sin. You are saying that the Church is wrong to recongize the validity of formal reasoning which draws these together? The doctrine of the co-mediator is a bit lick gilding the lilly. But I have no trpouble with it. It is compatible with the Church's ancient understanding of the role of Mary in the divine drama.