Are most of the early church fathers writings false or forgeries?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DictatorCzar

Guest
So I’ve been researching about church fathers for a while. I’ve been seeing people comment on Catholic Videos. One of the reasons I want to convert to Catholicism is because of the church fathers. I’ve been commenting to this anti catholic person. He said that most of the early church writings are forgeries and false. I’m confused, are they really false though?
 
Lets take St Polycarp, a Bishop and Martyr. He knew St John the Apostle. St John the Apostle knew Jesus the Christ. St Ignatius knew and advised St Polycarp.

Thats a pretty direct line two church fathers have to Jesus Christ. It also exemplifies Apostolic succession.
Interestingly enough the term
‘Catholic Church’
was first written , ( and has survived as text) by a Church Father when discussing the Eucharist.

“you should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorises. Where the Bishop is present , there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”
(smyrneans 8)
 
Last edited:
What is this person’s basis for calling them false/forgeries? I have never seen any sources that have claimed that the writings of the early Church Fathers are not legit.
 
There are some pseudo authors out there, but even those I wouldn’t think of as forgeries in the modern sense. For example, seven of Ignatius of Antioch’s epistles are considered authentically written by him, others to be pseudowritten in his name. Clement of Rome’s first epistle to the Corinthians is authentic, the second a pseudo author. However, the vast majority of ECF writings are authentic. Someone who claims otherwise would seem to be starting by incorrectly assuming that any ECF reference to bishops, priests, apostolic succession, sacraments, the real presence, etc… must be false.
 
Last edited:
Hahaha, he must be using Bible.ca , which is website on anti Catholicism. I kept responding him. He’s more of Protestant restorationist kind of person. I want to persuade him into Catholicism, and I myself I want to be a catholic. It looks like the ancient church to me on the outside. But on the inside, it looks like the church of Christ.
 
I’ve been talking to him on A video titled, Cathoclism is the first Christianity, by the YouTube channel, OneTrueChurch.
 
So he’s a Protestant…it all makes sense. Protestants, when learning about the history of Christianity, are forced to select what they like or categorically reject the writings of the Church fathers because they find that those who witness the tradition that goes back to the apostles do not support their position. Hence the fact that they accuse either the fathers of being devoid of any authority even though they are only following tradition and have been in contact with the apostles (Ignatius of Antioch, St Polycarp, St Clement) or they accuse the Catholics of having falsified the fathers’ writings. This is an unfounded statement. She doesn’t deserve any credibility.

We have an example with the Germans of the modern era who rejected all the writings that speak of the imposition of hands (tradition), because Protestants did not believe in it because it supported the Catholic Church, which is based on tradition.

I will quote Phillipe Rolland to illustrate this Protestant paranoia
It shows that Christ chose his apostles “under the action of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after a whole night of prayer (Lk 6:12-16), that he assured Simon-Pier that his faith “would not fail” (Lk 22:32); he affirms that the apostles transmitted to others their pastoral mission by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:1-6; cf. 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:9; the heirs of the apostles’ pastoral mission are called “presbyters” - hence the title “priests” (Acts 14:23; 15:6; 20:28; cf. 1 Pet 5:1-4). However, Luther, in 1520, after having understood that ordination (the laying on of hands) was not an apostolic institution, but an invention of men in a late period. The guardians of Lutheran orthodoxy, among them Ernst KÄSEMANN, in Germany, then found it convenient to declare that all writings that speak of the imposition of hands and presbyters were late, written after the death of the apostles to justify an organization of the Church that they had not foreseen. The writings in question are accused of “early Catholicism” (Frühkatholizismus) and their authority is therefore devalued.
Click to expand...
It is not based on anything except the individual desires of those who cannot accept that history supports Catholicism, so they are forced to invent fanciful theories to justify their assertions.
 
Nevertheless, there have been letters falsely attributed to the apostolic fathers, some to Ignatius, others to Clement de rome, etc., but these letters were already recognized since antiquity as pure forgeries.

Eusebe, for example, already spoke in his time of Ignatius’ letters, which were authentic and which were not, and guess what? The letters that are unanimously considered authentic today are those that were already considered authentic in Eusebius’ time. We didn’t wait for modern criticism to discern the true from the false.
 
Yes, that’s exactly what it is. These facts disturb them and they cannot revoke the authority of these characters because they knew the apostles directly so instead of doing this they say they are pure forgeries because admitting that the disciples of the apostles believed in what the Catholics believe, and the Protestants not because it would invalidate the Protestant position, poses many problems for them.
 
He didn’t really specify which church he goes to, he probably is a Protestant. I asked him multiple time what church you go to, but the person keeps making arguments.
 
It is highly unlikely that you are going to convince anyone online to convert. I recommend just thinking of it as debate practice and a incentive to further study Early Church history and keeping the anti Catholics on their toes and thinking in hopes something clicks one day
 
Last edited:
None of them are forgeries. There are some writings whose authorship get mistakenly attributed for a few years here or there.
 
Luke’s Acts of the Apostles makes it clear that Peter and John had to be summoned from Judea to Samaria to lay hands on the Samaritans Philip baptized but could not bestow the HOLY SPIRIT that was making him full of wonders and miracles.
Luther had not Philip’s gifts.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating thread…are some confused between false writings and forgeries without knowledge of pseudo writings which were common centuries ago, writings in the style of those they are named for…imitation, “the highest form of flattery” might be more accurate than “forgery” or “false writings”?
 
Last edited:
Because for Protestantism to be true the church fathers MUST be false. When investigated past the surface with any objective reasoning Protestantism falls apart. I say this as someone who was Protestant for 36 years until I could no longer reconcile the logical fallacies and inconsistency.
 
Thank you for the responses. I agree, Cathoclism is true. Protestants keep using unreasonable sources and claims. I have faith in the true church and the true Jesus. Every Christian believes in Jesus, but depending on what church, Jesus is different.
 
Bushum said:
Because for Protestantism to be true the church fathers MUST be false.
Click to expand...
This might be true for “non-denominational” Protestants, but “High Church” Protestants, who are learned in Church (and not meaning exclusively Catholic) History, actually embrace the Fathers of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top