So Paul, If I understand this right, the early Church Fathers held different veiws, yet were still much more "Catholic" like Catholicism today and not Protestant in any era of Protestantism. And they interpruted some of the scriptures and believed Holy letters (before the council of Carthage) differently and presented them to the leaders of the Church. If they were denied they were false or if they were accepted them they were true or there still was more studying and prayer to do before the issuses were settled?

Anotherwords, if I'm not mistaken, not all Catholics believed in the imaculate conception (although MOST did) up until the 1800's even though it was an ancient belief held by the Church, the Pope never defined it as infalliable untill the 1800's and now ALL Catholics are required to believe it? Same as the Assumtion of Mary that was infalliably defined in the 1900's? So even though some Fathers differed with one another, once the Pope who define an infalliable doctrine, no Church Father would reject it or they would be excomunicated from the Church?

And I understand that no Church father left the Church of Rome and started their own Church like the reformers did. They were still within the Roman Church and as I mentioned before, they were Catholic like Catholicism is today?

Do I have this right?

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 18, 2005

Answers

I'm not Paul but it sounds right to me.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 19, 2005.

Jason,

What you wrote is essentially accurate except for one point. A doctrine does not "become infallible" when it is formally defined. All the doctrinal teachings of the Magisterium are infallible, not just the few that have been defined ex cathedra. A doctrine is formally defined because it is already infallible, and is currently under attack, or at least is not clearly and universally understood. An ex cathedra definition clarifies an infallible teaching. It does not create one.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 19, 2005.

Yes Paul I undestand that, but what I'm saying is that, say a Church Father disagreed with another on a doctrine as some did, how was it settled and did the Church Father know what the leaders of the church taught on such a doctrine but still believed his way. That couldn't be right? Because they would have been excommunicated by the Church.

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 20, 2005.

Even saints can make mistakes, and the Church sometimes takes a while to proclaim a definitive teaching. Example: St. Thomas Aquinas did not accept the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Our Lady; there was a hot theological argument going on about this for hundreds of years between the Dominicans and the Franciscans. Finally, in the 1700s I think, the pope confirmed the view of the Franciscans (Duns Scotus). But although "settled", this was not defined as a dogma until Pius IX did so in 1854.

So, the Church is not always perfectly clear on every point of doctrine; sometimes we have to wait until the Holy Spirit gives us the wisdom and insight as a Community and as the Bishops.

St. Thomas was incorrect, technically, on that one question. But he was not a heretic, for (1) no final binding decision on this question had yet been handed down; and (2) he erred in good faith. If Thomas had lived a few centuries later, he would have submitted to the judgment of Pope Pius.

The teaching of the faith was given to us, once for all, in Jesus Christ, who is Himself "the Truth". But sometimes it takes a while for the Church to *realize* the full implications of the Truth. So often there will be theological disagreements between faithful Catholics, until a matter is declared settled definitively.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 21, 2005.