A
adrift
Guest
I too am interested and this is a link to the New question.
I also want to wish you a Blessed Christmas Season.
- Status
I also want to wish you a Blessed Christmas Season.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Unlike all the patristic Church Fathers, Tertullian denied the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by getting carried away in his polemics against the gnostics. He can be considered as a father with regard to the novel contribution he made in theology embraced by the Latin Church (Father of Western Theology?) just as Joseph Haydn is regarded as the “Father of the Symphony” by having transformed it into a long piece for a large orchestra. But a genuine Father does not merely offer new insights. He also guards what has been entrusted to him. Haydn never rejected any musical theory and application that had preceded him. He continued to write short symphonies for his own small ensemble at Morzin’s place in accord with an earlier tradition of music in the classical repertoire. Meanwhile a transformation of something like a symphony involves expanding it to something even more substantial and raising it to even greater heights of musical expression, without having it suffer any curtailment or negation.Radical, have not fear! It’s pretty common in the English language to put the most important thought of an author in the first sentence of a paragraph. The first 8 words…
“Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries,”
Father means “teacher of spiritual things”… he was a Latin Teacher. For more help on this subject, check this link out below on "“Fathers of the Church”.
newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm
Among other insights, it discusses at some length the criteria for being a “church father”
The same result is obtained by modern theologians, in their definitions; e.g. Fessler thus defines what constitutes a “Father”:
The criteria by which we judge whether a writer is a “Father” or not are:
- orthodox doctrine and learning;
- holiness of life;
- (at the present day) a certain antiquity.
In the article, there is also a comment that appealing to the Fathers appeals to tradition.
- citation by a general council, or
- in public Acts of popes addressed to the Church or concerning Faith;
- encomium in the Roman Martyrology as “sanctitate et doctrina insignis”;
- public reading in Churches in early centuries;
- citations, with praise, as an authority as to the Faith by some of the more celebrated Fathers.
Early authors, though belonging to the Church, who fail to reach this standard are simply ecclesiastical writers (“Patrologia”, ed. Jungmann, ch. i, #11).
“Appeals to the Fathers are a subdivision of appeals to tradition.”
So the same Catholic church which through tradition gave you the canon of scripture that you are using, is the same Catholic church that is defining the Church Fathers. If you accept the former, then you logically have to accept the latter. Or, if the latter is in error, then you can not trust the former (the biblical canon) to be reliable.
Radical, I do wish you a blessed Christmas season and Happy New Year. I do appreciate your posts on CAF as you make me a better Catholic every day, with every question you post and every reply that I read either from myself or others.
(note to all: my avatars are painted by “PIE”. She is quite talented.)
PAX
N
Nicea325
Guest
So what?
Do not need to be a scholar to recognize the obvious. There is a diffrence between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Yeah…and if you read a tad more one finds out he later followed a heretical sect.
What part of Montanist do you not comprehend or like? Yes…up to the point where he became a Montanist. Read some history Radical. Links? Why? For whose gain? Name ONE patristic scholar who denies Tertullian later was a Montanist? Sorry he does not meet all the criteria to be considered an ORTHODOX ECF all to his last second on earth. Before his conversion to the Montanist…by all means…after… a resounding NO!
Yes…he is controversial…but the fact he died outside of orthodoxy negates it. Sorry.
P
PRmerger
Guest
New thread started here.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Scripture does not contain only truths which have a direct bearing on our salvation. And since these secondary truths are contained in the Bible, however implicitly in the spiritual sense, and are closely associated with those primary truths explicitly stated, the fact that they are contained, as clarified by Tradition, shows they have been revealed by God in order for us to praise Him for his mighty deeds and glorify His name. Moreover, all the truths revealed in the Scriptures are there primarily for us to better know God and what his will is for us to be saved, and to strengthen our faith and hope in his mercy. So they must be believed as an article of faith by belonging to the Gospel message which has to be heard and lived.
Incidentally, what may be thought not to be read in the Scriptures or “proved” by them may in fact be there in the written word, although implicitly as a veiled truth, and is confirmed by the more explicit traditional teachings of the Church as part of the deposit of faith. St. Ignatius of Antioch contended with the Docetists who argued that Jesus only appeared to be human, and so he did not actually suffer and die as men naturally do. The bishop alludes to these heretics and the Church’s dealings with them in his Letter to the Philadelphians, Vlll.2 (c.A.D.110): “and I exhort you to do nothing of contention, but according to the discipline of Christ. Since, I have heard certain men say, ‘Unless I find it in the ancient Scriptures, I believe it not in the Gospel.’ And when I said unto them, ‘It is written,’ they replied, ‘That remains to be proved.’” Peter and the Apostles must have received the same reply from the Jews when they began to preach in Jerusalem and appealed to the OT sacred texts as they contended with the scribes and Pharisees. Not unlike the OT, the NT must be interpreted in light of sacred Tradition by the authentic apostolic teaching authority of the Church. The incarnation of God and the life, death, and resurrection of Christ - the son of Man - are required beliefs which are central to our faith. But in the first century, the written word of God (OT) was not as readable or provable as some confess it should be concerning truths of primary fundamental importance in the Christian faith. Such strict necessity would be required only if sacred Tradition did not belong to the deposit of faith and there was no need for an authentic interpreter of the Scriptures.
The Incarnation is a primary truth, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a secondary truth closely associated with it - but still of itself important for us to better understand who God is and how he expects us to conduct our lives in accordance with His word. The opposite may be indicated, but not indubitably, only when reading the Scriptures in the literal sense in a frame of mind nurtured by a culture foreign to that of the ancient Jews. By reading the Scriptures in a spiritual sense free of cultural constraints, we have more “evidence” that supports traditional Catholic doctrine which can be traced back to the early 2nd century.
PAX
M
Mickey
Guest
I think you are wrong. It is well known that Tertullian fell into error…but I also believe he is considered to be a valid ECF in respect to his orthodox writings.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I disagree. Happily, many people, like myself, have been called back to the Catholic Church from the ranks of Protestantism. God is still able to open the eyes of those who cannot see.
This, as I have said previously, is the problem: you have the cart before the horse.
Once you understand and accept that the Catholic Church is infallible, then other doctrines will become easier to understand and accept. Until then, you are obstinately seeking to prove your own position. That’s completely understandable, of course. Why wouldn’t you?
However, much time will be wasted by you and those seeking to interact with you because you cannot see with the eyes of Catholic faith. Your Protestant-colored glasses block certain things from your sight…including (possibly) the fact that you are even wearing these lenses.
The Catholic argues from Scripture and Tradition…two streams which spring from a single source…and from the understanding and teaching of the infallible Magisterium. Like a three-legged stool, these three form a stable, sturdy basis for theological thought.
The non-Catholic rejects the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition and insists that everything be proved from Scripture Alone. This standard is itself an unbiblical “tradition of men” that renders many, if not most, discussions of Catholic theology unfrutiful.
Catholics can attempt to explain Catholic theology to from the pages of scripture alone, but ultimately, when your opinion is equal to mine and there is no ultimate authority to judge between them, we will eventually reach the impasse that you acknowledge. That’s where we’re at now. I am confident, however, that the more you seek to disprove Catholicism, the more you will come to realize that it cannot be done. Consequently, I urge you to throw yourself completely into the study of the errors of Catholicism. It’s the surest way for you to learn the truth.
You may have the last word.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jimmy Akin, Director of Apologetics here at Catholic Answers and author of The Fathers Know Best, explains why Tertullian is NOT considered an Early Church Father in this brief video:
youtube.com/watch?v=2zxMf4kZ0o8
Now you know.
P
PRmerger
Guest
:curtsey:
N
Nicea325
Guest
I never said he was always unorthodox. Yes many of his works defend orthodoxy. I said he was and did practice orthodoxy until the time he became a Montanist. He died as one,therefore he cannot be considered one. If I am a praciting Catholic and decide to follow a heretical sect later in my life and die as a heretic…will I still be considered as an orthodox Catholic at death?I think you are wrong. It is well known that Tertullian fell into error…but I also believe he is considered to be a valid ECF in respect to his orthodox writings.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I like the way Jimmy Akin phrased it in the video linked previously…“the trajectory of Tertullian’s life” was away from the Church, and thus he is not considered an ECF.
“Trajectory.” Good image.
M
Mickey
Guest
That is Jimmy’s opinion and not shared by all.
catholicfaithandreason.org/tertullian-155-245-ad.html
M
Mickey
Guest
His writings are well repected and orthodox before he fell into error. They are still used today for edification and apologetics. It is my understanding that he is considered (by most) to be a legitimate ECF.
N
Nicea325
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
N
Nicea325
Guest
Yes…prior to his conversion as a Montanist he is legit. After such a conversion…he is not.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. And it helps us provide better apologia for the Divinity of Christ.
Imagine a Muslim, contemplating Christianity, who is in discussion with, say, a Non-Catholic Christan.
M: You believe that Jesus was Divine?
NCC: Yes! He was God!
M: Yet you believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary?
NCC: Yes. What does that have to do with Christ’s Divinity?
M: Well, I just have a hard time believing that this Jesus could have been God Incarnate if the womb that contained him later also held mere human creatures. It’s like your OT Ark of the Covenant, which held the Holy of Holies, also later carrying around some desert stones. If the Ark also carried non-holy things, it makes it quite suspect that it actually carried something Holy.
NCC: Talk to a Catholic, then! He might be able to convince you better about Christ’s Divinity
.
J
joe370
Guest
Exactly…Yes. And it helps us provide better apologia for the Divinity of Christ.
Imagine a Muslim, contemplating Christianity, who is in discussion with, say, a Non-Catholic Christan.
M: You believe that Jesus was Divine?
NCC: Yes! He was God!
M: Yet you believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary?
NCC: Yes. What does that have to do with Christ’s Divinity?
M: Well, I just have a hard time believing that this Jesus could have been God Incarnate if the womb that contained him later also held mere human creatures. It’s like your OT Ark of the Covenant, which held the Holy of Holies, also later carrying around some desert stones. If the Ark also carried non-holy things, it makes it quite suspect that it actually carried something Holy.
NCC: Talk to a Catholic, then! He might be able to convince you better about Christ’s Divinity
P
PRmerger
Guest
As we like to proclaim, all truth is Catholic truth.
So to the degree that Tertullian proclaimed the kerygma is the degree that he was consonant with the truth.
To the degree that he divorced himself from the kerygma is the degree that he is wrong.
- Status