Do Non Catholics Study the Early Church Writings?

[NotWorthy]

Contarini:

Any Protestant seminary worth its salt teaches classes on the Fathers.

Edwin

Well then, that begs the questions: What do these salty seminaries teach about St. Ignatius? Our doctrine on the hierarchy of the Church is very much in communion with his writings. What about the writings of St. Clement? He exerted Papal Authority pretty early on in the Church History. What about the Didache or Justin Martyr? If you read these writings, you can almost hear their voices when a priest goes through the Eucharistic Prayer.

Meanwhile, I’ll try and get out more!

God Bless,

Notworthy

 

[tamie]

I have been a member of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Christian Reformed Church and never hear of any of the early church history until I started looking into the Catholic Church. Apparently some Protestant churches choose to ignore that part of religious history. It has been interesting for me to discover the history, and I have learned a lot!

Tamie Walcott

 

[O.S.Luke]

Early Church writings by the Pre-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers were all required reading in seminary (I’m United Methodist). I was required to study all the early liturgies as well as the Didache for liturgical and sacramental studies as well.

The current Eucharistic prayers in our tradition come from the earliest recorded liturgies of Hippolytus and Justin Martyr.

O+

 

[Milliardo]

Contarini:

Any Protestant seminary worth its salt teaches classes on the Fathers.

Edwin

Then how come many of the ideas of the Early Fathers don’t trickle down to the congregation? Do they just study them, and then leave whatever they’ve learned in seminary? Or is Protestant theology seen as more superior than the Early Fathers’, so they’re studied for the sake of comparing them with Protestantism? Let’s get a bit closer: how come John Cardinal Newman left the Anglican church after he discovered that its roots came from the Catholic Church? If Protestant thought is so much closer with the Early Fathers, then wouldn’t it be so decisive as to make him stay rather than leave the Anglican communion?

 

[Contarini]

Tigerhawk:

Care to share any examples and sources?

Well, they lack some of your more significant liturgical developments, such as the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, so their Eucharistic piety looks a lot more like that of the Fathers. And while we can go back and forth all day about whether Western developments with regard to the papacy or the Orthodox lack of a papacy are a more significant change from the patristic era (I’m sympathetic to the Catholic case on that one), it remains clear that the messy, undignified, consensus-based approach of the Orthodox to polity and Church-wide decision making is a lot more like the patristic era than the more bureaucratic Catholic model.

The Orthodox quote the Fathers more, they use more patristic terminology, and when they describe what the Christian Faith is all about they just sound more like the Fathers than most Catholics do (though “ressourcement” has changed that considerably). Don’t take my word for it. Go to some Orthodox churches, talk to some Orthodox, look at the literature available in the parish lobby, etc. The Fathers have a far more obvious and pervasive presence.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Tigerhawk:

What are these differences?

Are you claiming there aren’t any? Are you basing this on a study of the Fathers that you yourself have conducted? If you have read substantial amounts of patristic texts and don’t see any differences, I’m willing to discuss the point with you. Otherwise there’s little point–we’ll be arguing in the dark.

But so you don’t think I’m trying to avoid backing up my claims, here are a few examples:

Patristic Eucharistic piety is more focused on reception of the Eucharist (in both kinds). This has become more the case in recent years, but traditional Catholicism tend to put adoration at the center.

The Fathers place greater emphasis on the authority of the bishop than modern Catholics, and less emphasis on the centralized authority of Rome (that’s a drastic understatement–you can find patristic scholars who don’t see anything like the modern Roman primacy in the Fathers; I’m stating the case in its most undeniable form).

The Fathers place far more emphasis on Scripture than modern Catholics do, and they frequently use language about its authority that sounds more Protestant than Catholic (I’m not claiming that they were Protestants, or that they were closer to Protestantism than Catholicism–only that they were not the same as modern Catholics–with the possible exception of those Catholic theologians deeply committed to “ressourcement” on the basis of Scripture and the Fathers).

The Fathers speak of the authority and centrality of Scripture in a way that is rare among modern Catholics (though the situation has gotten better in some ways in more recent years).

And here are two differences that show up more drastically after Vatican II (as opposed to the preceding areas, in which Vatican II marked a return to the Fathers to a large extent):

The Fathers have a far more uncompromising attitude to heretics and a far stricter conception of the unity of the Church than modern Catholics; and

The Fathers have a far more negative attitude to sexuality, and most of them would be horrified by the modern Catholic acceptance of NFP, which they would see as unacceptible self-indulgence at best and a perversion of sexuality at worst.

Note that I used the comparative in all these cases, so my claims will be hard to refute. All I’m saying is that if you read modern Catholic documents or look at a Catholic parish and then read the Fathers, you will see differences. You’re free to argue that they are matters of degree rather than real contradictions. Fine. But they are differences, and they seem significant to Protestants.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Semper Fi:

Really? What about the Eastern Catholics? If we really were that far off base as you say, those who are ‘closer’ to it than us as you put it, would have never came back into communion with us.

God bless,

There are all sorts of political reasons for the various unions that created Eastern Catholic churches. This is not to say that it was purely political, only that you can’t use the fact of the union to refute my point. Many, perhaps most Eastern Catholics are to some extent uncomfortable about their position, and the Orthodox of course regard them as traitors. If anything, the example of the Eastern Catholics proves my point. Many Roman Catholics (in the strict sense) attend Eastern churches because they are more deeply rooted in the common Tradition of the Church. If you talk to such people, I think you’ll find that the greater closeness of the Eastern tradition to the Fathers is a major factor in the attraction Eastern Catholicism holds for them.

I should probably have said “Roman Catholicism,” and when berated for it I could have pointed out that I was being strictly accurate, since what I’m saying doesn’t apply to the same degree to the Eastern Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Della:

No, we aren’t required to do anything of the sort. They are** witnesses** only not sources that must be built upon.

You’re right–I spoke hastily and inaccurately. What I should have said is that you have to read the Fathers in a way that is consonant with the developed tradition of the Catholic Church.

And of course your claim makes things worse, in a way. You’re essentially admitting that Catholics do exactly what they criticize Protestants for doing–cite the Fathers selectively when they “witness” to a point you want to make, but ignore them when they disagree with you. This is what the Reformers did, but they were hardly unique in doing so. The difference is that we don’t claim to give the Fathers the kind of authority you do. Catholic apologists speak as if this means that Protestants don’t pay attention to the Fathers while Catholics do. But in fact we both pay attention to them, while neither side gives them absolute authority. When it seems to us that they were wrong, both sides are wiling to say, “On this point the Holy Spirit has given us further guidance.” Protestants are more honest about it than Catholics, but we both do it.

Della:

The only differences are the development of doctrine and some disciplinary changes, other than that, there are no significant differences.

But “development of doctrine” can cover all sorts of things. To use the very example that Catholics like to use, it’s like saying, "There’s no difference between this oak and the acorn from which it grew, except that the oak is much bigger, has a very different shape, and in fact has many acorns of its own hanging from it . . . . "

And many Protestants are not convinced that “discipline” is as trivial as you think it is. In practice, many lay Catholics aren’t convinced of this either. You (“you” being educated Catholics who understand the official teaching) can tell them all day long that the old rules for fasting were discipline, not doctrine, so it was OK for the Church to change them–but vast numbers of Catholics can’t and won’t get the point, because it runs against their basic religious instincts. The distinction is rather artificial, and betrays a very abstract, cerebral notion of the Christian Faith.

Della:

Besides, you can’t condemn us for changing if you think you are superior because you can change whatever you want. That doesn’t make sense, now does it?

No, it doesn’t, which is why I said nothing of the sort. Every part of that sentence is inaccurate. I’m not condemning you for changing–simply pointing out that the changes are there. I’m not saying that Protestants are superior, and I certainly don’t think that being able to change “whenever we want” is a good thing. The point isn’t that we can change whenever we want. The point is that we are willing to say, openly, that no form of the Church in any period of history is totally free from error and no non-Scriptural expression of the Faith is of absolute authority. That doesn’t let us “change whenever we want,” but it does make things simpler.

 

[Contarini]

Della:

No, that’s not why doctrine was developed. It was developed to get all of the Gospel message from them as possible.

I didn’t say anything about why “doctrine” was developed–of course the reason you gave is the true one, whether we’re talking about Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox. I was giving a reason for the development of the theory of development itself, which is quite different. My point was that you wouldn’t need to talk about development if there were no differences between you and the Fathers. As Catholic patristic scholarship improved in the post-Tridentine era, it became clear that the Fathers (as the Protestants had been pointing out) didn’t support contemporary Catholicism as completely as Catholics had previously thought. So a theory of development became necessary.

I will give you this (and this negates some of what I’ve been saying, which is too onesided): it is far easier for Protestants to dismiss the Fathers entirely when we discover that they don’t support us. We shouldn’t let ourselves do that, but historically we often have, and that’s what folks in this thread are picking up on. My point (and this I stand by) is that you don’t have the Fathers all to yourselves. In many points they do/did support us (at least over against Catholic belief and practice of the Reformation era), and they deeply shaped our belief and practice, at least in the early days of the Reformation (and in the case of Anglicans and some other Protestant groups they have continued to do so–other Protestants do indeed tend to ignore the Fathers). You have never been able to dismiss them, but you have often managed to muzzle them. And that you can do far more effectively than we can.

Della:

Sorry, once again you are wrong. The Church did not go through a major reformation after Vat. II. The council itself didn’t make any really big changes.

It all depends on what you mean by “a major reformation” or “really big changes.” I’m very happy if you think that the changes were not big ones, because that means that our differences are less than they have often seemed. To us Protestants (at least to moderate, ecumenical Protestants) the developments of Vatican II seem hugely important. Communion in both kinds and the use of the vernacular (granted that neither of these were mandated by the Council, and both are to some extent optional, especially the first) are huge issues to us, although they may seem small to you. The same with Vatican II’s declarations about ecumenism and religious liberty (though those, especially ecumenism, were actually moves away from the Fathers). And many of the practical changes in tone and emphasis likewise seem very important to us. We do not necessarily share your apparent belief that only official dogmas are of real importance.

Della:

Several of our bishops ran ahead of the council and introduced things, such as the vernacular, that were merely suggestions and very limited ones at that, and did what they pleased.

The introduction of the vernacular went way beyond what the Council mandated, true, but it was hardly the work of “several of our bishops.” It was clearly a Church-wide initiative, and I have not heard of any bishops who did not go along with it except for bishops who went into schism. I may be wrong on that–perhaps there are dioceses where the vernacular is still not used.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

NotWorthy:

Well then, that begs the questions: What do these salty seminaries teach about St. Ignatius?

That’s a very good question. Of course it depends on denomination and even the individual seminary. I can speak best for Duke Divinity School (a Methodist seminary with many students and professors from other traditions), since I’ve served as a preceptor (teacher’s assistant) there and taught the letters of Ignatius! Of course, it was a history course, so I wasn’t there to tell them what to believe, simply to make them take the texts seriously and think about what they had to say.

NotWorthy:

Our doctrine on the hierarchy of the Church is very much in communion with his writings.

Ignatius doesn’t talk about hierarchy beyond the local Church (except for a reference to the Church of Rome “presiding in love,” which is quite vague). Most Protestant denominations have a far more developed hierarchy than anything found in Ignatius. In fact, probably the Baptists (who tend to have a very strong, authoritative pastor with relatively little accountability) look more like Ignatius’s polity than many of the rest of us. OK. Anglicans also have a similar approach, but both Catholics and Methodists put far more restraints on the local bishop/pastor than are evident in Ignatius.

Nonetheless, Ignatius has posed a problem for many Protestants, simply because he clearly thinks that visible church structures are essential and that the bishop/pastor has what looks almost like absolute authority over the flock, assisted by the presbyters and deacons. (This would actually suit some nondenominational churches quite well–I’m rather glad that such churches tend not to study Ignatius, or he might confirm them in their abusive practices!) Many Protestants are uncomfortable with the idea that any church structure or official can have that kind of authority. So for a while it was fashionable to cast doubt on the authenticity of the text. This was not as unreasonable as it sounds, since in fact the texts were heavily interpolated and there were many spurious letters. But since the 19th century it’s been commonly agreed that the shorter versions of seven letters are authentic. And I think that has played a role in pushing Protestants to take the authority of the Church more seriously (I don’t think the Reformers would have had a problem with Ignatius in this regard, but some of the later, more radical forms of Protestantism would).

 

[Contarini]

NotWorthy:

What about the writings of St. Clement? He exerted Papal Authority pretty early on in the Church History.

I assure you, NotWorthy, that if the Pope would restrict himself to the kind of “authority” exercised by St. Clement, he’d meet with few objections from reasonable Protestants. Not to mention the fact that modern scholars (including Catholics) are not at all sure that Clement was the bishop of Rome, or that there was any single bishop of Rome at the time. One common theory (based on a reference in Hermas) is that he was basically the corresponding secretary of the Roman church, in charge of writing letters to other churches. I find this view a bit too radical–I take the lists of bishops found in Irenaeus and other sources more seriously than that. But it is a view held by many scholars.

NotWorthy:

What about the Didache or Justin Martyr? If you read these writings, you can almost hear their voices when a priest goes through the Eucharistic Prayer.

Or when an Anglican priest, or a Methodist pastor, or for that matter a pastor of many other denominations, goes through the Eucharistic Prayer . . . .

Actually the Didache is of some embarrassment to those of us from a more high-church point of view, because there’s no indication of any doctrine of the Real Presence (though the word “sacrifice” is used), and in fact the prayer would not be considered valid by Catholics today. In fact, this has bothered some Anglican scholars so much that they have suggested that the “Eucharist” described in the Didache isn’t the Lord’s Supper at all but simply grace over a communal meal. Also note the provision for the “prophets” to give thanksgiving as much as they desire. This would warm the cockles of free-church Protestant hearts!

Justin of course does speak of the Real Presence, but it’s vague enough that more high-church Protestants would have no problems with it. Only the really low-church folks, like the Plymouth Brethren, see Justin as problematic in that regard. And again, the service he describes is far freer in form than a Catholic Mass.

I’m not disputing that study of the early Fathers challenges many Protestant attitudes. The modern “liturgical movement” which has transformed both Catholicism and mainline Protestantism drew its inspiration from many of these texts. My point is simply that the texts you’ve referred to are hardly completely alien to Protestants.

Furthermore, it seems odd to a Protestant that you would assume that we would never study anything with which we disagreed. That seems a horribly limiting approach to me! The glory of studying church history is that you encounter so many different and challenging points of view.

I’m not disputing that the study of the Fathers among Protestants leaves a lot to be desired. Duke is one of the most patristically oriented seminaries out there, and I know it’s far from typical. But there’s a strong tradition of patristic scholarship within Protestantism, dating back to the original Reformers (who were steeped in the Fathers). And Catholics have some way to go as well. My impression is that many Catholic priests have been taught more Rahner than Chrysostom. But I could be wrong about that . . . .

Edwin

 

[NotWorthy]

Contarini:

I’m not disputing that study of the early Fathers challenges many Protestant attitudes. The modern “liturgical movement” which has transformed both Catholicism and mainline Protestantism drew its inspiration from many of these texts. My point is simply that the texts you’ve referred to are hardly completely alien to Protestants.

Furthermore, it seems odd to a Protestant that you would assume that we would never study anything with which we disagreed. That seems a horribly limiting approach to me! The glory of studying church history is that you encounter so many different and challenging points of view.

I’m not disputing that the study of the Fathers among Protestants leaves a lot to be desired. Duke is one of the most patristically oriented seminaries out there, and I know it’s far from typical. But there’s a strong tradition of patristic scholarship within Protestantism, dating back to the original Reformers (who were steeped in the Fathers). And Catholics have some way to go as well. My impression is that many Catholic priests have been taught more Rahner than Chrysostom. But I could be wrong about that . . . .

Edwin

Once again, I reiterate, you need to come down to the Bible Belt and see. The Protestants around here , mostly Fundamentalist, think that studying the Early Church Fathers is to study the Reformation. I’ve got to admit, I’m not very acquanted with many Anglicans, other than our Parish Priest, who joined the Church from the Episcople Church. There are several Methodist Churches around, but I’ve mostly gotten blank stares if I ask about these writers.

It’s especially interesting to note that a lot of “Apostolic” Churches are springing up around here, and they haven’t a clue about the early church.

Contrarini, I was puzzled with your response on NFP. If there is a difference between our Tradition of NFP, and that being heretical by ECF standards, how is that closer to Protestantism, where most (I emphasize most) have given up on the struggle of contraception and/or remain silent?

I’ll be the first to admit that the Catholic Laeity(?) by and large ignore this teaching, but the teaching still remains, as it should.

Take Care and God Bless,

NotWorthy

 

[Contarini]

Milliardo:

Then how come many of the ideas of the Early Fathers don’t trickle down to the congregation?

You’re making a huge generalization. Mainline Protestant worship has changed a great deal in the past fifty years or so, and largely as a result of the study of the Fathers. The average parishioner may not understand that this is the reason, but it definitely affects them.

You’re also assuming that the “ideas of the Early Fathers” have a direct and obvious impact on most Catholic congregations. That is not my impression!

Milliardo:

Or is Protestant theology seen as more superior than the Early Fathers’

There are Protestants who think that. Others would see the Fathers as just one period of church history, not necessarily more or less authoritative than the Reformation. Others would see the Fathers as having quite a bit of authority, though of course not as much as Scripture. It all depends on which Protestants you’re talking about. The original question was about study of the Fathers, and I responded that all respectable Protestant seminaries study the Fathers to some extent. What they do with them varies a great deal.

There is definitely a tendency, at least among the more staunchly confessional Protestant traditions, to read the Fathers through the lens of the Reformation (B. B. Warfield’s famous book on Calvin and Augustine, and his oft-quoted but highly misleading characterization of the Reformation as a battle within the mind of Augustine, is a good example!). But then, Catholics read the Fathers through the lenses of Trent and Vatican I and now Vatican II!

Milliardo:

how come John Cardinal Newman left the Anglican church after he discovered that its roots came from the Catholic Church?

That is not why he left. For one thing, that was hardly news to him or to any Anglican (or any Protestant except the most radical ones who indulge in fantasies of medieval Protestant dissenters). He left because he decided that Anglicanism had decisively broken with those roots and could not be called back (it was more complicated than that, but that was at least part of the picture). His initial “discovery” of the Catholic nature (not simply Catholic roots) of Anglicanism (“Catholic” being defined not quite the way you would, and not the way Protestants historically would either, but in terms of the teaching of the pre-Reformation Church both East and West) is what led him to try to transform Anglicanism and construct a non-papal Catholicism. Eventually he decided that this was both theologically and pragmatically impossible.

Milliardo:

If Protestant thought is so much closer with the Early Fathers, then wouldn’t it be so decisive as to make him stay rather than leave the Anglican communion?

I did not say that Protestantism was closer to the Fathers than Catholicism. I did say that Orthodoxy was, but even there I should have said “than Roman Catholicism,” that is, Latin-Rite Catholicism. I do not think that Protestantism is closer to the Fathers than Catholicism. As a whole, the reverse is true, but not uniformly. We have points where we are closer to the Fathers than you used to be (vernacular liturgy, a communal understanding of the Eucharist, Scripture-centered piety), but Vatican II significantly changed that. And mainline Protestant churches have themselves been significantly changed by the same liturgical movement that has affected you (in fact it began with you and spread to us). The same currents are at work in the more low-church evangelical traditions, but they have to compete with American pragmatism and church-growth movements and stuff like that (just as among mainliners they compete with, or in some cases fuse with, liberal theology, feminism, etc.).

Furthermore, Newman’s project as an Anglican consisted of the denial that he was a Protestant, or that Anglicanism was essentially Protestant. Again, what made him seek communion with Rome was the conviction that this “via media” simply didn’t work. He was not trying to reconcile the Fathers with Protestantism. He was trying to build a non-papal Catholic Anglicanism on the basis of the Fathers, thus ridding Anglicanism of the Protestant virus. He was quite right to think that this was a hopeless project.

But there’s another way–not to deny that we are Protestants, but to deny that Protestantism and Catholicism are mutually opposed (historically, of course, Protestants have claimed to be Catholic). We are part of the orthodox Christian–which is to say Catholic–tradition. Insofar as we have deviated from authentic Tradition, we must return to it. And the Fathers can be very helpful in that project. But that isn’t the same thing as Newman’s project, because it’s not rooted in the denial of history.

Edwin

 

[NotWorthy]

Milliardo:

Let’s get a bit closer: how come John Cardinal Newman left the Anglican church after he discovered that its roots came from the Catholic Church?

That may not be the best argument. For every anecdote of someone returning to Rome, there is one (OK, maybe more, maybe less) of someone leaving the fold. Cardinal Newman is a great example, and his story is worth studying, but most protestants would reply, “Cardinal Who?”

NotWorthy

 

[Della]

Edwin, it is apparent that you don’t know as much about Catholic teaching and history as you think you do. You assume the Protestant objections of the Reformation were true, when they simply weren’t. And Catholics don’t have to pretend that the Church Fathers agree with us when they most emphatically do. If you want to read into the development of Catholic Church teaching the idea that we have to go back to the Church Fathers to reconcile them with any development of doctrine and dogma, you are simply wrong, once again. We do no such thing!!! The teachings of the Catholic Church have not and never will change. Never, never, never.

As for ecumenicism, as you very well know, the Church Fathers never anticipated any splitting up of Christianity into huge dissenting groups who would then claim to be as legitimate as the Church Christ founded. Their world was a pagan/heathen one not one in which there were something like 30,000 different sects and denominations all claiming they speak for Christ better than Christ’s Church.

I will not let your rewriting of and ignoring of significant elements of history and of facts go by with an indulgent smile so you can feel free to cast oh so subtle but false accusations against Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of which you are a member only by reason of your trinitarian baptism and nothing more and to which you need to be reconciled. It would be dishonest and unfair to both you and any lurkers and seekers on this board.

 

[Contarini]

NotWorthy:

Once again, I reiterate, you need to come down to the Bible Belt and see.

No I don’t. I grew up in the Bible Belt. But you didn’t say “Bible Belt Fundamentalists.” You said “non-Catholic religions.” (Actually, “non-Catholic religions” would mean Hindus, Muslims, etc., but I didn’t take you that literally!). The world is a whole lot bigger than the Bible Belt, and there may be stuff even in the Bible Belt that you haven’t run into. You were making blanket statements not just about all Protestants but all non-Catholics. If you want to know why fundamentalists don’t study the Fathers I’d be happy to discuss that. But there are far more varieties of Christianity than Catholicism and fundamentalism. If there is one thing I am on this board to say, it’s that. And I take delight in saying that precisely because I did grow up in the Bible Belt, and I know exactly where you guys are coming from. I can imagine how hard it is to be a Catholic in the Bible Belt. I was one of the folks giving you guys a hard time (back when I was an obnoxious brat), and when I considered becoming Catholic I was put through it myself from friends and family. But I discovered, both to my confusion and my delight, that the options available in Carter County Tennessee are not the only ones existing in the Christian world!

NotWorthy:

The Protestants around here , mostly Fundamentalist, think that studying the Early Church Fathers is to study the Reformation.

If you can get fundamentalists to pay real attention to the Reformation other than trying to find anti-Catholic sound-bites, you’re doing well . . . .

Some fundamentalists do pay attention to the Ante-Nicene Fathers. But generally history isn’t their strong suit.

NotWorthy:

There are several Methodist Churches around, but I’ve mostly gotten blank stares if I ask about these writers.

I’m sure you have!

NotWorthy:

It’s especially interesting to note that a lot of “Apostolic” Churches are springing up around here, and they haven’t a clue about the early church.

I presume by “Apostolic” you mean Pentecostal (many of whom use this term)? Are they Trinitarian or “Oneness”? Where do you live?

One thing you need to bear in mind is that fundamentalist Protestantism (I’m using “fundamentalist” broadly–Pentecostals are a different breed in many ways but share a lot of traits) is steeped in American populism and the accompanying disdain for history (or anything else that gets between the individual and raw experience). Many of their pastors may not have gone to seminary at all.

Among Pentecostals, for instance, one of the intellectual centers these days is Regent University (Pat Robertson’s place in Virginia). I was hired a couple of years ago to grade papers for a seminar there which looked at church history from a “pneumatological perspective.” This of course tended to mean reading it through a Pentecostal lens. But while I didn’t attend the class (yes, it was weird to grade papers without having been to the class, and this didn’t raise my confidence in the quality of the school; but that was what they hired me to do), it was clear that they had looked at quite a few patristic and medieval texts. One of the papers, I remember, was on Symeon the New Theologian (granted, not an Early Church Father exactly, but close).

My point is simply that these guys definitely had some acquaintance (however slanted) with the ECF’s. But how many Pentecostal pastors have had that kind of training? Very few, no doubt. There’s a huge gap between what seminaries teach and what people hear in the pews. And the fact that many of the fundamentalist churches don’t like seminaries only makes that gap wider.

NotWorthy:

If there is a difference between our Tradition of NFP, and that being heretical by ECF standards, how is that closer to Protestantism, where most (I emphasize most) have given up on the struggle of contraception and/or remain silent?

NFP isn’t much of a Tradition. It’s a relaxation of the Tradition. An entirely correct one in my opinion, of course. But as far as I can tell it’s a relatively recent position. Certainly Augustine speaks of it with horror (granted, he was talking about Manichean practices, but he seemed to think that the practice discredited the theology rather than the other way round).

More to the point, I wasn’t claiming that the Protestants are closer to the Fathers on this point (though some fundamentalists/evangelicals do reject all birth control, including NFP). I was simply pointing out ways in which modern Catholicism differs from the Fathers. Some of those, in my opinion, are good changes, some are bad, some are indifferent. On some points Protestants are closer to the Fathers, on others (more numerous, I grant) we’re farther away, on others there isn’t much to choose between us.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

NotWorthy:

That may not be the best argument. For every anecdote of someone returning to Rome, there is one (OK, maybe more, maybe less) of someone leaving the fold. Cardinal Newman is a great example, and his story is worth studying, but most protestants would reply, “Cardinal Who?”

NotWorthy

As would most Catholics. It’s highly unfair to compare active, engaged, intellectually curious Catholics who hang out on discussion boards with the average Protestant in the rural South. Just as it’s horribly unfair for evangelical Protestants to compare active, engaged, faithful evangelicals with the average nominal member of a church as big as the RCC . . . .

Edwin

 

[NotWorthy]

The “Apostolic” Churches I refer to are mostly Non-Denominational. They are not Pentecostal, unless they’ve gotten rid of the dresses only, non-jewelry, “watch out for that fan” hair styles, and Much-Holier-Than-Thou attitudes.

NotWorthy

 

[Contarini]

NotWorthy:

The “Apostolic” Churches I refer to are mostly Non-Denominational. They are not Pentecostal, unless they’ve gotten rid of the dresses only, non-jewelry, “watch out for that fan” hair styles, and Much-Holier-Than-Thou attitudes.

NotWorthy

OK, these are not the Apostolics I had in mind, but they are very likely still Pentecostal (or Charismatic). Many Pentecostals have indeed gotten rid of the “holiness” lifestyle you describe–and many never embraced it. I know that in the South most Pentecostals traditionally are holiness and most holiness folks are Pentecostal–as non-Pentecostal holiness folks like my family found out very quickly!

Edwin

 

[Philena]

What I was taught of church history as a Lutheran was:

1. The Book of Acts
2. Martin Luther liked Augustine.
3. Martin Luther.

Even as a 13 year old child, I wondered at the 1500 year gap in church history between Acts and Martin Luther.