ECT ST. AUGUSTINE ON THE TRUE CHURCH FOUNDED BY CHRIST

Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Cruciform said:
QUESTION: When the Nicene Creed was formulated in 325 A.D.---at the thoroughly Catholic Council of Nicaea---what exactly were the beliefs and teachings of the "church" that they referred to in the Creed, and do they represent the invented doctrines of Protestantism, or are they distinctively "Catholic" teachings which the Church still believes and teaches today?

Shall I go ahead and post a list of beliefs held and defended by the "Church" which composed the Nicene Creed? :think:


So much for your imaginary romanticism of the early Christian Church. The "mythology," it seems, is entirely yours.
Click to expand...
There you go again painting pictures through Romanist lenses.

Nothing about the makeup of the Nicean Council in 325 AD resembles what you have clung to as your regula fidei.

No one disputes that the church in 325 AD was not at least a visible vestige of the true church. Unfortunately you and all Romanists import anachronistically into these matters of history the notions of today's Romanism. The bishops, cardinals were but provincial, local, regional, and geographical presbyters of the church in the second century. None of those formerly used terms can be latched upon, as do Romanists today, claiming, "See! Look! Bishops, Cardinals, etc., were there!" as if these nouns mean what they mean today, especially after Trent.

For example, Augustine (354-430) was a bishop at a time that knew one church only, the universal church, where no allegiance to Rome or anyone else existed. In fact, he was called by the church of Carthage to be its pastor. Augustine predates the Medieval papacy and the Reformation. I will even grant that Augustine once stated on an occasion, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Romanists anachronistically point to this assertion as evidence of Augustine’s belief in the superiority of the bishop of Rome. However, as history clearly demonstrates, Augustine made this comment after the bishop agreed with him. On another issue, on which the bishop of Rome disagreed with Augustine, Augustine stated “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Clearly, Augustine felt bound by Scripture and not some perceived allegiance to an infallible Rome.

Unfortunately, you confused Romanists still think the Bishop of Hippo means the same thing as the Bishop of New York, ignoring the historical development on the use of the term. You are swallowing Rome's mythologies and should know better if you are a proper student of the development of the church. Put down Rome's tomes and pick up some unbiased treatments of church history and doctrinal development. Study to show yourself approved.

AMR
 
Last edited:
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Cruciform said:
The Patristic documentation is conclusive, whether one is a Catholic or a Protestant. The 4th-century Christian Church held and defended the following beliefs and teachings, among others:

~ baptismal regeneration
~ Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist
~ the divine authority of Tradition as Divine Revelation, along with Scripture (thus, no sola scriptura)
~ the primacy and authority of the papacy
~ verbal confession of sins to a priest for absolution
~ invoking the intercession of past Saints (Communion of Saints)
~ apostolic succession
~ the religious use of sacred images and objects in worship & devotion
~ infant baptism
~ the role of good works (though not "works of the law") in salvation (thus no sola fide)
~ the Mass as a genuine sacrifice
~ a 73-book biblical canon
~ the intermediate state known as purgatory
~ etc.​

This is the "Church" that composed the Nicene Creed, and this is the "church" described therein. Viewing the Creed through anachronistically Protestant lenses simply won't do.

My earlier statements (Post #79) stand exactly as posted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
Cruciform said:
The Patristic documentation is conclusive, whether one is a Catholic or a Protestant. The 4th-century Christian Church held and defended the following beliefs and teachings, among others:

~ Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist
Click to expand...

There is nothing explicit in scripture that teaches this - certainly, your interpretation is not substantiated or mandatory. Jesus simply tells believers to remember Him by it. You are free to consider what you will when celebrating but don't impose it on others.
 
Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
That you allow for a genuine non-Catholic Christian who may consider the bread and wine as symbolic - such renders your claims dispensable.

Why are we even having this conversation?
 
Crucible

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
The bread and wine are not literal, it is obvious in the context. I doubt the early Christians had even a shred of a thought otherwise, or the apostles themselves.

Above all, it's unneeded and redundant. It is something that evolved as people grew overly attached to rites and sacraments, being that Transubstantiation wasn't even established until the 13th century.

Basically, it hinges on the 'infallibility' of the Pope because it is absent in scripture and in early history :rolleyes:
 
Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
Cruciform said:
The Patristic documentation is conclusive, whether on is a Catholic or a Protestant. The 4th-century Christian Church held and defended the following beliefs and teachings, among others:

~ the Mass as a genuine sacrifice
Click to expand...

Why speculate thus? Nothing in scripture warrants your extrapolation.

It's a simple ceremony that believers should celebrate in reverence as a memorial.
 
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Totton Linnet

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber

All corruptions of the apostolic traditions, they baptise but not in the apostolic tradition, they break bread...actually they don't, not as the apostles did.

The priesthood is corrupt, the practise of confession corrupt.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Sonnet said:
Why speculate thus? Nothing in scripture warrants your extrapolation. It's a simple ceremony that believers should celebrate in reverence as a memorial.
Click to expand...
That's what you've been taught by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. By contrast, the biblical content regarding the Eucharist may be seen HERE and HERE.
 
Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
Cruciform said:
That's what you've been taught by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. By contrast, the biblical content regarding the Eucharist may be seen HERE and HERE.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to read these huge documents - I could equally post to a cite rebutting such arguments. Just post an actual argument from yourself.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Rather than assert, please provide substantive documentation of this so-called conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...
For example, beginners can start with THIS, THIS, and THIS.

For detailed documentation, I recommend the following excellent book-length treatments:

51okegEpF0L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Willis, THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS (Ignatius Press, 2002)


412D00aGptL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Holmes, THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 2nd edition (Baker Academic, 2007)​



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Sonnet said:
I'm not going to read these huge documents - I could equally post to a cite rebutting such arguments.
Click to expand...
Then you've already made up your mind apart from all of the available evidence, and you may as well go ahead and dispense with the pretense of actually wanting to understand what Catholics believe and teach.

Just post an actual argument from yourself.
Click to expand...
To what end, given your dismissive comments above?
 
Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
Cruciform said:
Then you've already made up your mind apart from all of the available evidence, and you may as well go ahead and dispense with the pretense of actually wanting to understand what Catholics believe and teach.


To what end, given your dismissive comments above?
Click to expand...

There is no explicit statement in scripture that justifies transubstantiation. John 6 may be taken as symbolic and the offence regarding His claim to have come down from heaven.

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

Of course, Jesus hadn't even instituted communion at this point.
Why make a big deal out of nothing? Nobody needs a Catholic Church to celebrate the bread and wine or any imposition of an inferred meaning.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Sonnet said:
There is no explicit statement in scripture...
Click to expand...
Please cite the biblical text which states that "Everything believed and done by a Christian must be explicitly stated in the Bible." [SOURCE][SOURCE]

John 6 may be taken as...
Click to expand...
But how is it to be "taken" in order to be TRUE? The mere ability to offer an alternative interpretation hardly qualifies as an argument.

Nobody needs a Catholic Church to celebrate the bread and wine or any imposition of an inferred meaning.
Click to expand...
...unless it happens to be Divine TRUTH. Here you're merely parroting what you've been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, whose opinions---since it is decidedly NOT that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.---carry no doctrinal authority whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top