I’m sorry that I’m not up to your “standards” as being worthy for debate.

The “system” as you so eloquently write, has NEVER or will NEVER fall apart since Jesus promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. If you believe that it did, then your calling Jesus a liar. The Church fathers were all Catholic in thinking and theology no matter how you try and make them look Protestant. The fathers writings MUST be looked at in their entirety, just as scripture must and not by extracting Protestant buzzwords or verses to “fit” your brand of theology that was foreign until the 1500’s.

Since you speak of Dogma and when it was pronounced, you obviously lack true knowledge of the Catholic faith and rely on the ample amount of smoke and mirror apologetics that is common with James White and his followers. As I stated in many posts, the Doctorine of The Trinity was “restated” during the Council of Nicea in 325, in response to the Arian heresy. Did that mean that it was never believed before then??? I’m sure you would agree that the Trinity was always believed from the beginning.

If you read the story on Patty Bonds’ conversion, she accurately states that her brother is fighting against what “his” perception of The Catholic Church is rather that what She “really” teaches… read below in her own words (I added James White in parenthesis)….

My brother (James White)had written a number of books in an attempt to refute the Catholic faith. I saw them as being the most anti-Catholic books I could possibly read. I felt that I owed it to my children and to my husband and to my own soul to be sure before I made any move toward Rome.
I had already read his book on Mary, but I took two others off the shelf at home and began reading. In short order it became clear that he was fighting a Church that did not exist. He did a great job of destroying the teachings he wrongly ascribed to the Catholic Church, but his barrage of anti-Catholic rhetoric left the pure teaching of the Church unscathed. His misinterpretation of the Eucharist as a repeated crucifixion of Christ demonstrated his earthbound view of heavenly reality. You cannot repeat a sacrifice that exists perpetually in the eternal present of heaven. His denial of the existence of temporal punishment, examples of which fill scripture, fueled his argument against Purgatory. After wading through the vast majority of two other books, I reached the realization that I no longer had a choice. I had to embrace the Catholic faith, or run from the truth and go back to where I had been and spare myself the humiliation I knew converting would bring. But if Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist, no price was too high for the gift of receiving him.

Seeing that it has taken so much effort on my part to get you to answer what I thought were simple questions, I am not inclined to get into a debate with you over the interpretation of various patristic writings. I would consider doing it with other RCs, but with you I do not think it would lead to a productive dialog.

In your previous comment you made a logical fallacy in asserting that the fathers must have been Protestant or RC. Firstly, on virtually every doctrine (except, say, monotheism) there was no “unanimous consent of the fathers”, as any honest person reading patristic writings would admit. Secondly, I am able to admit the fathers leaned towards Protestant beliefs on some issues, but were closer to (what we would today call) Roman Catholic beliefs on other issues. This admission does not impugn my rule of faith. On the other hand, since the fathers form an integral part of your rule of faith, you must insist that they held to what we know as RCism today. If they did not, your system falls apart.

I also note your equivocation and question-begging in referring to Augustine’s use of the term “Catholic”. Yes, the fathers called themselves “Catholic”, but does that mean their understanding of the term is the same as yours today? I believe an honest reading of their writings without some preconceived idea that all RC historical claims of today are true, reveals that “Catholic” has quite a different meaning today. To give a simple example, where did the fathers teach the Bodily Assumption of Mary as dogma before say 500AD? Yet today, one must believe in this dogma to be in the Catholic church.

Yes, I am familiar with the story of James White’s sister. Is that supposed to prove that the RC faith is the true faith? Hardly. What if the sister of some well-known RC apologist left the RC church and became a Protestant? Would that prove RCism is wrong? Of course not.

Simon

Once again, “I am not” trying to “win anyone” over. I come to “clarify”, not “convince”. If you have read the fathers (as you say you have) you have to see (unless you choose not to) that it is very clear that they verify the teachings of the Catholic Church. You can’t make the fathers look protestant, when they are, in fact, Catholic.

What is your translation of the following?

Augustine
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Yes, I copied and pasted it (as you have with James White). By the way, did you know that James White’s sister became a Catholic??Here’s the link (have fun):

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

By the way, did you know that James White’s sister became a Catholic?? Read her story..
http://www.chnetwork.org/pattybondsconv.htm

I don’t recall you posting this link before. The quote you gave in your first comment (“Rome has spoken; the case is concluded”) appears to be from a different page on the Catholic Answers website, so I find it amusing that Catholic Answers also gives a legitimate translation of Augustine’s words, thereby contradicting itself.

I still seem unable to get you to reply to my original assertions. Your previous comment did not clarify these. Once again, do you agree with my original premises? Viz., (a) you attributed words to Augustine that he never said or wrote, and (b) the context of his actual words in Sermon 131 was not Petrine primacy.

I asked whether winning people to the RC church is important than telling the truth? Gerry, if you simply admitted to being sloppy and not checking out the actual text of Augustine’s sermon, I would not have suggested you are being dishonest. But I have shown you the facts and you have not refuted them. You refuse to admit error. Sadly, this is an attitude I have seen from all too many RC apologists. Admitting that you are wrong about a patristic citation or a historical claim does not necessarily invalidate all your other truth-claims about the RC church, but I wonder if RCs see it that way.

In any case, I would still like to ask you the same question: is winning people to the RC church more important than telling the truth? Or to put it another way, suppose you could win Protestants to the RC church by making a false claim about the RC church or about history. Would you still make such a false claim? Since you seem to have trouble answering my questions directly, let me give you a small incentive. I will be happy to answer the same question (with Protestant and RC interchanged) for you, if you are interested.

Simon

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

I think you will find the translation I referred to being pretty much exactly what you quoted see below…

Your quote:
…for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.

My quote:
“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Here’s the link I used.

I have not lied or am I “trying to win anyone” as I have stated from the beginning..I come here to “clarify” the true Catholic teachings and not the “misunderstandings” (I won’t step into the gutter as you have) that this site puts forth as “truth”

For the third time, my problem is that you (a) mis-cited Augustine, and (b) made it appear that he was addressing in Sermon 131 the issue of Petrine primacy. Have you actually read his Sermon 131?

Since you don’t seem to want to deal with it, here is the relevant part of the sermon in Latin and English, as given in the link I provided earlier:
http://www.aomin.org/Sermo131.html

Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.

…for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.

causa finita est can also be translated “the case is concluded” or “the case is closed”, but where do you find “Roma locuta est”, which can be translated as “Rome has spoken”? It is nowhere. Moreover, as you would see if you actually read the sermon, Augustine is not addressing the primacy of Peter here, but rather the errors of Pelagius.

If even Roman Catholic historians (e.g., Robert Eno) can admit the quote you gave was a fabrication, why can’t you?

Is winning people to the Roman Catholic church more important than telling the truth?

Simon

Actually, I have read the fathers. I did copy/paste for the sake of expediency to make a my point. What is your problem with this? That is what they did, in fact write. Are you arguing this? If you would wish, we can didg much deeper into Ambrose , Augustin, Justin Martyr, etc…since their writings, as Catholic doctors of the Church and Saints, not only do not contradict Catholic teaching but VERIFY it. I’m up to it if you are??

It appears you have previously quoted Catholic Answers in order to answer questions people had about RC theology. However you did not admit to copying and pasting patristic quotes verbatim from Catholic Answers beginning with your first comment.

You have not replied to the substance of my previous post. You have mis-cited Augustine and made him say something that is completely removed from the context of his actual words (in Sermon 131).

Hence, ironically, you do not seem to have read the fathers for yourself, instead preferring to parrot whatever Catholic Answers tells you.

Simon

If you read my posts, I do mention Catholic Answers as “one” of my sources. Is there a problem with this? I believe others use there own “sources” for their info as well.

I also agree that everyone should go and read the fathers for themselves. Not just selected passages but ALL their writings. You will clearly see see that The Church was Catholic from the start.