Anti-Catholics on Early Church Fathers

[bigdave3119]

As A life long evangelical I never expected to ever be catholic. It was in the reading of the ECF that brought me home. Especially St. Ignacious of Antioch!! Convinced me of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Became catholic at age 74, am now 80 yrs old. Praise the Lord!

 

[Anna_Scott]

As A life long evangelical I never expected to ever be catholic. It was in the reading of the ECF that brought me home. Especially St. Ignacious of Antioch!! Convinced me of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Became catholic at age 74, am now 80 yrs old. Praise the Lord!

bigdave,

Welcome to CAF. Great post and great 1st post!

 

[BrianGular]

Er no, there was no ‘shared’ history, theological or otherwise. That was Catholic history.

History is history and cannot be co-opted by one group or another. Protestants point back to the same events, histories, writings, councils, and doctrines as Catholics do prior to the split that occurred in the 16th century. Only after that date can one accurately refer to separate Catholic and Protestant histories. We could also make a similar argument for a shared history with the Eastern Orthodox Church. There hasn’t been a little-c catholic (“universal”) church since the 11th century.

 

[Lesko1]

I’m not sure how informational this post was originally created to be. It looks much more like a referendum on those folks who do not view the Early Church the same way Roman Catholics do. Some of those folks may be anti-Catholic, but a good portion of them aren’t.

 

[Crescentinus]

From experience, I’ve seen how Seventh-Day Adventists among many other tend to disregard the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Lesko1]

From experience, I’ve seen how Seventh-Day Adventists among many other tend to disregard the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

I would agree. I think many Evangelicals in majority disagree with the ECFs, but the real genuine Protestants do not as a whole…

 

[manualman]

History is history and cannot be co-opted by one group or another. Protestants point back to the same events, histories, writings, councils, and doctrines as Catholics do prior to the split that occurred in the 16th century. Only after that date can one accurately refer to separate Catholic and Protestant histories. We could also make a similar argument for a shared history with the Eastern Orthodox Church. There hasn’t been a little-c catholic (“universal”) church since the 11th century.

Good response to a rather chest-thumping post. But to quibble a bit, this approach creates more problems than it solves. The problem is that by granting presumed legitimacy to everyone who claims to hold the christian faith, you have rather a LOT of heresies in the course of history that now need apologizing to! The Manicheans might defend themselves the same way you did. Jansenists, Albigensians, Gnostics, you name it. Once you declare there to be NO arbiter of legitimate interpretations of Scripture (and Tradition), EVERYBODY claims to be in the ‘big tent.’ It’s an excercise in absurdity visible in our world today where everybody from Jesse Jackson to Benny Hinn to Joseph Smith claim to be prophets of God and keepers of the faith of the Scriptures. As a catholic, I sure am glad it’s not MY job alone to sift all these competing and contradictory claims. I don’t know how you guys can ever sleep at night!

 

[Woody87]

I’m am going to reply even though I am not anti-catholic just non-catholic. There are many reasons why we wouldn’t normally read the writings of the ECF. First would be a stylistic issue their writings tend to be hard to understand and interpret. It is something you really have to be interested in. The next issue is who is the best to read and what to read, out of the multitude of their works. Because these works are not popular it is hard to get your thumb on which works will best help you through your walk. Also since these works are seen as being fallible even by catholics it wouldn’t be necessary for anybody who reads it to actually change their opinion on the subject. For example while I consider Tertullian to be wise although I do not always agree with his opinions on chasteness. It can also be confusing to read authors when they change their opinions on subject Augustine does this on the subject of purgatory in his book city of God he suports it and then in his book the Enchiridion he is unsure of whether it exists or not. Lastly most non-catholics I know concentrate more on what the bible says and are caught up in reading and committing it’s words to memory. Which we could all use to do. Some think interpretation can be conveyed by the Spirit which all christians posses. Even if a subject is not in the Bible some biblical principle will point to it and if it doesn’t than it probably isn’t important enough for me to have knowledge about.

 

[SteveVH]

Also since these works are seen as being fallible even by catholics it wouldn’t be necessary for anybody who reads it to actually change their opinion on the subject.

If one is interested in exactly what the early Christians believed then it is irresponsible not to consult the writings of those first Christians. The fact that their writings were not included in the canon of Sacred Scripture does not make them any less true. Right or wrong, they are representative of the continuity of Catholic doctrine since the time of the Apostles and a sure testament to the presence of the fullness of truth, both in Sacred Tradition and in Sacred Scripture.

Lastly most non-catholics I know concentrate more on what the bible says and are caught up in reading and committing it’s words to memory. Which we could all use to do. Some think interpretation can be conveyed by the Spirit which all christians posses.

Unfortunately, the idea that the Holy Spirit “which all Christians posses” is going to correctly interpret scripture for all Christians is contradicted by the objective truth that all denominations, by the nature of the case, contradict one another. Truth cannot contradict truth. Therefore, the entire idea is nothing more than wishful thinking. An authoritative interpreter, a final arbiter of truth, is an absolute necessity and Christ established this authority in the Church when he gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose. The inspiration of scripture guarantees its truthfulness, not its interpretation.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I’ve read a bunch of pages from Catholic.com with quotes from pre-Constantine saints, and a lot of them defend many of the things we believe in… like for example, St. Irenaeus spoke of Rome’s primacy in his book “Against Heresies”.

But I wonder how many anti-Catholics have actually read any of the works of these saints, and how would they have reacted to them. I’m pretty sure if they did, a lot of them would say it’s either written by someone else from a later century, or that the name “Rome” only refers to the whole empire instead of the capital. Ever wonder about that?

I grew up in an Evangelical environment.

The Church Fathers were never mentioned, and when I say never, I really mean not even once.

The Church Fathers I simply stumbled upon on my own one day. When you have a history obsession like I do, that makes the Church Fathers interesting reading material .

And the Fathers led me out of Evangelicalism.

 

[Woody87]

SteveVH
The point where I am going to differ in opinion with you is that I do not think that anything outside of scripture or cannot be clearly seen in scripture is necessary for salvation, sanctification, justification, and glorification. At which point what does it really matter who is right and who I wrong. You probably celebrate Christmas and other religious holidays where I think that celebrating religious holidays is actually wrong. First example of many that could be made.
Everyone and their brother who is Catholic and Orthodox, by the way which one of you is right, wants to throw out there this theory that because there are thousands of denominations of protestants that we cannot possibly be right on a subject. First and foremost faulty logic will not get you anywhere with me your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Even if I were the only one Christian who new the full unadulterated truth it would still be the truth. I am sure that you will admit that some of the denominations if not most hold truths in common. The reason for most splits in the church that I have seen have been over stylistic differences in worship or someone offends another.
You speak of a authoritative interpreter, but from what does his authority stem? Not form the church but from God. Can God not bestow this gift to a person outside of the RCC or maybe a better question is would He?
In reference to your first point I tend to agree. These question do come to my mind though: Does a point that was made by a early christian hold more weight then one made today? Are the writings we have a clear representative of everything the church believed? If two people had different opinions and one becomes more widely held does that make it true? If five of the EFC, in huge bodies of works, happen to mention in a singular sentence something controversial that make it a Tradition or even something important? That last question was speaking in generalities it did not have a specific example in mind.
Thankyou for conversing with me I love this.

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes I was born and raised RC and left a few years ago, in my late 50’s. I don’t know of any RC that has read the ECF or early history in my circle or even the Bbible for that matter. They mainly believed as I did it was not necessary as the church will teach us what we needed to know. We are talking people that I know are mainly in my age group.

Things are probably different now with the internet, as I did all my reading on the net mainly.

So actually it was after reading all the ECF and early Roman history, the historians, and the history of the RCC is what led me to leave, so I guess it can have the opposite effect as well.

I don’t know any anti RC, just others like me that no longer believe in the RCC teachings or the way the Vatican operates , but I know anti RC and anti protestants are surely plentiful.

One must read the ecf with their life in mind, where they came from, and what were their influences. One of them writing today may have a totally different view of things.

 

[Porknpie]

SteveVH
The point where I am going to differ in opinion with you is that I do not think that anything outside of scripture or cannot be clearly seen in scripture is necessary for salvation, sanctification, justification, and glorification. At which point what does it really matter who is right and who I wrong. You probably celebrate Christmas and other religious holidays where I think that celebrating religious holidays is actually wrong. First example of many that could be made…

Hi Woody, in reading scripture, what do you think is clearly seen as necessary for salvation? I’m also confused on your religious celebration comment. You are saying that it is wrong to celebrate the birth of Christ (Christmas) and his death and resurrection (Easter)? Are there any holidays that you do celebrate?

PorknPie

 

[manualman]

1…I do not think that anything outside of scripture or cannot be clearly seen in scripture is necessary for salvation, sanctification, justification, and glorification. 2- At which point what does it really matter who is right and who I wrong. You probably celebrate Christmas and other religious holidays where I think that celebrating religious holidays is actually wrong. First example of many that could be made.
3 - …Even if I were the only one Christian who new the full unadulterated truth it would still be the truth. I am sure that you will admit that some of the denominations if not most hold truths in common. The reason for most splits in the church that I have seen have been over stylistic differences in worship or someone offends another.
4 - You speak of a authoritative interpreter, but from what does his authority stem? Not form the church but from God. Can God not bestow this gift to a person outside of the RCC or maybe a better question is would He?
5 - In reference to your first point I tend to agree. These question do come to my mind though: Does a point that was made by a early christian hold more weight then one made today? Are the writings we have a clear representative of everything the church believed? If two people had different opinions and one becomes more widely held does that make it true? If five of the EFC, in huge bodies of works, happen to mention in a singular sentence something controversial that make it a Tradition or even something important?

Interesting thoughts. I took the liberty of adding some numbers so I could ask some response questions.

1. OK, but does Scripture ever make that statement? Where? (Don’t say 2Tim3:16-17, because it doesn’t. Read it more closely and notice that it’s really only saying that Scripture is vital, not that it is the ONLY thing a christian needs. If this idea that all true authority lies in scripture is true, shouldn’t Scripture actually SAY that somewhere? Instead it looks to me like Scripture shows that Jesus appointed apostles with authority to teach and that those people delegated that authority. Nowhere in Scripture is there a point in which that pattern is declared to STOP and authority is transferred to a book instead. Nowhere! It’s a made up idea unsupported by Scripture itself.
2. It matters because humans tend to fracture and squabble. God probably knew that, right? Sure would have been nice if God had provided a means to discern correct interpretations of Scripture from bad ones. Or maybe He DID!
3. Catholicism agrees that, by definition, christians DO hold many (most?) beliefs in common and that what unites us is greater than that which divides us. But you are refuting an argument catholicism doesn’t make. We don’t argue that the existence of multiple protestant denominations proves that protestantism as a whole is utterly wrong, we argue that the existence of real and sincere believers who disagree with each other on significant topics conclusively demonstrates the falsehood of the assertion made by some protestants that they don’t need any authority to interpret the bible because the Holy Spirit will guide true believers to a correct understanding of the Scriptures when they read them. The facts on the ground suggest that either the premise is false or the Holy Spirit is bad at his job. (yikes!)
   4 - Great question! Absolutely God can choose to miraculously reveal truth to anybody He wants to, any time He wants to. The trick is figuring out which of the people who CLAIM God has appointed them to be authoritative leaders actually are and which ones are mistaken (or charlatans). Human nature being what it is, we tend to pick the leaders that tell us what we WANT to hear. Catholics, on the other hand, believe the best way to do this is to stay faithful to the model JESUS established. He had 12 apostles, those apostles established churches wherever they went and they delegated their authority by ordaining bishops to lead those communities when the apostles moved on (or were martyred). Those bishops repeated the pattern without ceasing (every catholic bishop on earth can trace his office back to an apostle). Catholics note the special place of headship Jesus gave to Peter and believe this office continues to his successors. Eastern Orthodox don’t believe this distinction amounts to much and conduct this apostolic succession differently, but have the same basic understanding of it. While we believe God CAN choose whatever means of revelation He wants to, we notice that what he DID clearly choose to do was collect 12 apostles and give them a mission and an authority which has never been rescinded.
   5- Another great point you make. Just because one or more early christian believed something doesn’t make it right. Heck, most of the VERY early christians thought Jesus was returning in days or weeks and in some cases liquidated their assets to provide short term care for the needy. Oops. But the entire body of these early writings CAN shed light on some topics. Today, 2,000 years later, we can argue in isolation about whether John 6 is a metaphoric discussion or a literal institution of the Eucharist. But it IS instructive that for 1,000 years every single christian writer you will find talks about communion as the REAL flesh and blood of Christ. Nobody implied it was a mere symbolic reminder until MUCH later in history. Is it really credible that every single early christian writer got this issue wrong and that theologians 1,000+ years later were the ones who finally figured out the truth? Wanna buy a bridge??

Thanks for arguing constructively. I love it too!

 

[Woody87]

had a long weekend and day. Anyway, PorknPie, what I was trying to say in a more condensed form is that we should celebrate the birth death and ressurection of our savior every day. Adding a special day is completely unnecessary. Where some people like to celebrate on a specific day. It was to basically state that some issues have no answer or need no answer do them unto God for who is your judge but him.
I am vary mentally exhausted I had an exam today and a tough E&M class and a not so simple theoretical physics class and a rediculous abstract theoretical caculus class so if I was kinda off chalk itup to my brain being gone
P.S. I am reffing Rom 14 I think and maybe Gal 4

 

[trapper1]

Yes I was born and raised RC and left a few years ago, in my late 50’s. I don’t know of any RC that has read the ECF or early history in my circle or even the Bbible for that matter. They mainly believed as I did it was not necessary as the church will teach us what we needed to know. We are talking people that I know are mainly in my age group.

Things are probably different now with the internet, as I did all my reading on the net mainly.

So actually it was after reading all the ECF and early Roman history, the historians, and the history of the RCC is what led me to leave, so I guess it can have the opposite effect as well.

I don’t know any anti RC, just others like me that no longer believe in the RCC teachings or the way the Vatican operates , but I know anti RC and anti protestants are surely plentiful.

One must read the ecf with their life in mind, where they came from, and what were their influences. One of them writing today may have a totally different view of things.

Out of curiosity, what in the ECFs did you find that led you away from catholicism (or early church history for that matter)? Other than St. Augustine, I suppose…we all know his influence on Luther and Calvin.

 

[Woody87]

Manualman answer to topics brought up

1. It’s funny you mentioned that verse because I was thinking about 2Tim3:15-17. MAybe you are saying that this verse doesn’t say all that I was claiming which can be true because I was making a negitive statement and the verse is making a positive one. I also was adding in Rom 8:30ish in there. The way I read 2Tim3 is scripture is sufficient (able) for wisdom that leads to salvation and is profitable for training in righteousness and for ever good work. That is the way I was taking the scripture and this parapharsing is close to the original. I then just added my own twist on it by including Rom8:30 which could be a problem. Sure I didn’t know I was implying this but I was implying that there is no authority apart from the bible. I do think I mean that there is no absolute authority outside of the bible. I am pretty sure that it is not stated that their authority goes beyond anything within human capabilities I guess don’t take that last statement to literally.
2. Or the premise that we don’t always either fully understand or misconceive the Spirit basically something more of an human problem than a Spirit problem. Also not sure on what is Significant to you probably to many things to be stated here. Something my father thinks is critical is Calvinism but while I do not think Arminians are right I also dont think they are not saved my father disagrees.
3. I am stil confused on why this is important to me being eventually Glorified. Pick your fav topic, please not Mary I am sick of this topic unless you really feel like it, who cares baptism sounds good.
4. Yes Jesus appointed Apostles and Disciples to spread the word he gave them authority which is clearly stated at the end of John I think. I am not sure that I have a huge problem at least nothing that first comes to mind about statement 4. Now if this statement is taken through some logical course to prove something I don’t agree with I might revisit it.
5. I am not saying that I agree with everything that this sites or link says but I remember reading it and thinking it made sense ( fivesolas.com/nontrans.htm ). It at the least leads me to reasonable doubt on the subject of Transub

 

[solarguy17]

Interesting topic. As a “evangelical” Christian, let me give you my thoughts.
Background - I am a member of the church of Christ, a strictly fundmentalist group of Christians.

The way I look at ECF, including those mentioned in the Bible (Paul, Peter, etc) are that at the end of the day every person mentioned in the Bible is fallible, except of course for God and Jesus. So I put the ECF in that fallible category.
While those men might have been well meaning and might even be right, I put more stock in what the Bible says directly rather then what men say.

This is actually pretty comparable to the current political situation.
You have a group of people (conservatives) that want to follow the US Constitution very strictly with little or no interpretation by anyone. This is similar to the views of fundamentalist Christians in regards to the Bible.
Then there is a separate group of people (liberals) that want to follow the idea of the US Constitution and rely on men that came after the founders to help interpret the Constitution and how we should apply that today. This is similar to how many Christians, including Catholics, view the Bible. Follow the idea, but rely on other that came after (ECF) for assistance with interpretation.

 

[JustaServant]

Interesting topic. As a “evangelical” Christian, let me give you my thoughts.
Background - I am a member of the church of Christ, a strictly fundmentalist group of Christians.

The way I look at ECF, including those mentioned in the Bible (Paul, Peter, etc) are that at the end of the day every person mentioned in the Bible is fallible, except of course for God and Jesus. So I put the ECF in that fallible category.
While those men might have been well meaning and might even be right, I put more stock in what the Bible says directly rather then what men say.

This is actually pretty comparable to the current political situation.
You have a group of people (conservatives) that want to follow the US Constitution very strictly with little or no interpretation by anyone. This is similar to the views of fundamentalist Christians in regards to the Bible.
Then there is a separate group of people (liberals) that want to follow the idea of the US Constitution and rely on men that came after the founders to help interpret the Constitution and how we should apply that today. This is similar to how many Christians, including Catholics, view the Bible. Follow the idea, but rely on other that came after (ECF) for assistance with interpretation.

The constitution and the Bible are two totally different animals. Your analogy doesn’t hold up at all.

 

[mgteich]

IMHO, papal primacy is much different than the Catholic doctrines associated with the Holy Father. Primacy implies neither supremacy nor infallibility. Many might believe the Bishop of Rome to have primacy and be the first among equals among the patriarchs of the Church.

I’ve read a bunch of pages from Catholic.com with quotes from pre-Constantine saints, and a lot of them defend many of the things we believe in… like for example, St. Irenaeus spoke of Rome’s primacy in his book “Against Heresies”.

But I wonder how many anti-Catholics have actually read any of the works of these saints, and how would they have reacted to them. I’m pretty sure if they did, a lot of them would say it’s either written by someone else from a later century, or that the name “Rome” only refers to the whole empire instead of the capital. Ever wonder about that?