Early Church Fathers...Matter or Not?

[aidanbradypop]

Atte…so if you do not give the Church Fathers any authority nor the Church, then where does the authority go?

 

[Attejohannes]

Atte…so if you do not give the Church Fathers any authority nor the Church, then where does the authority go?

Sigh… I thought you knew that I am one of the "five solae"set

 

[aidanbradypop]

Sigh… I thought you knew that I am one of the "five solae"set

Maybe I need more coffee

ok back to the topic lol

 

[MaryT777]

It’s interesting to note Martin Luther regarding Fathers of the Church
(I assume these are ECF but I can stand corrected)

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[adf417]

Catholocism could certainly be right in many of the areas they claim to be, but the ECF certainly don’t conclusively prove much for any faith.

ECF’s “only”…I would agree but ECF’s “in addition to” scripture & tradition…unmistakably orthodox!

 

[CMatt25]

I think reading the church fathers is very useful and interesting and think all christians would benefit from seeing the incredibly strong faith of our ancestors. I don’t consider them dogmatic or divine in any way and have to disagree with them when their words don’t match scripture however.

I personally think it is fascinating how, even just in the few hundred years after Christ, there was already such a diversity of beliefs and practices among his followers. The faith may have been united under a single flag, but the individual beliefs under that flag were anything but uniform. One thing that has always bugged me a little is that some catholics I know or have met tell me I should read the ECF, assuming I havent and that doing so will instantly convert me. I’ve read through the majority of the significant ECF writings and have even taken informal courses not affiliated with any church on them and have never once thought “well, that settles it”. I listen to guys like Scott Hahn talk about the ECF playing such a huge role in their conversion and I can only assume they were starting to believe the catholic faith before and went in looking for it, because I just don’t see it. I see incredibly dedicated followers of Jesus who frequently changed their opinions on practices and dogma and disagreed amonst themselves.

Well put. This post is exactly why I push the pause button when it comes to the ECFs. I’ve seen and heard too many other non Catholic Christians say basically the same thing about them and their writings for me personally not to give pause. And in some cases non Catholics may even interpret the words of the ECFs differently than do Catholics.

 

[Attejohannes]

It’s interesting to note Martin Luther regarding Fathers of the Church
(I assume these are ECF but I can stand corrected)

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

When we say that the Fathers are not infallible and not authoritative, we do not mean that they are always wrong or everytime mistaken. We just use the scripture as a yardstick for their teaching.

That was the stand of Luther. In his booklet: “On the Petrine keys” (1530) he writes (translation mine): "But what do you say about the aforsaid sentence of Pope Gregory : “Sententiae nostrae, etiam injustae, metuende sunt” (our anathema should be feared, even if it were unjust). I say that let this sentence be from Gregory or from his mother, anyway it comes from Satan himself. I would like to face directly that doctor, who teaches that I should fear injustice and lies, were he even an angel from heaven, and ask him to take his terrible sentence and place it in the spot on which the children of Adam sit and then wipe his nose. What might mean this terrible blasphemy, when they dare to demand us Christians to fear public injustice and known lies and worship them as idols. If, indeed St. Gregory has said something like that, meant it and not repented, he must the be in the deepest pit of hell. However, I do not intend to judge Gregory.

But it has caused us always great pain and misery that the donkeys and sophistis of Rome in their Universities and monasteries have made the sentences of the dear Fathers as creeds, withou listening to St. Paul, when he says (1 Tess 5, 21) that everything must first be tested and without thinking that the holier the dear Fathers have been the more they have had to fight and be vigilant againt evil thoughts and the secret devices of the devil, and they could not prevent that some of these have slipped from the pen and tongue to public, just as we have seen how dear Job during his tribulations spoke unseemly against God. The fathers were human like us, and even they had to every day pray the Lords parayer (forgive us our transgressions etc.)"

 

[aidanbradypop]

Atte…the Church does not state that they were infallible. Those who were popes, yes, but not all were.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Very well. Just read the Ignatian epistles- or the writings of Irenaeus - and compare them to the later Mariology, the doctrine of Papal supremacy, the teaching on Purgatory etc, expounded by the later fathers, and - supposing that these early fathers represent the most original apostolic tradition - whether these dogma can be justifiably traced down to the apostolic teaching.

I would agree with you on Papal supremecy and Purgatory, but I was thinking more or less with Ignatius the absolute authority of the Bishop, for Ignatius the Bishop really might just be the centre of the Christian community.

 

[MaryT777]

When we say that the Fathers are not infallible and not authoritative, we do not mean that they are always wrong or everytime mistaken. We just use the scripture as a yardstick for their teaching.

That was the stand of Luther. In his booklet: “On the Petrine keys” (1530) he writes (translation mine): "But what do you say about the aforsaid sentence of Pope Gregory : “Sententiae nostrae, etiam injustae, metuende sunt” (our anathema should be feared, even if it were unjust). I say that let this sentence be from Gregory or from his mother, anyway it comes from Satan himself. I would like to face directly that doctor, who teaches that I should fear injustice and lies, were he even an angel from heaven, and ask him to take his terrible sentence and place it in the spot on which the children of Adam sit and then wipe his nose. What might mean this terrible blasphemy, when they dare to demand us Christians to fear public injustice and known lies and worship them as idols. If, indeed St. Gregory has said something like that, meant it and not repented, he must the be in the deepest pit of hell. However, I do not intend to judge Gregory.

But it has caused us always great pain and misery that the donkeys and sophistis of Rome in their Universities and monasteries have made the sentences of the dear Fathers as creeds, withou listening to St. Paul, when he says (1 Tess 5, 21) that everything must first be tested and without thinking that the holier the dear Fathers have been the more they have had to fight and be vigilant againt evil thoughts and the secret devices of the devil, and they could not prevent that some of these have slipped from the pen and tongue to public, just as we have seen how dear Job during his tribulations spoke unseemly against God. The fathers were human like us, and even they had to every day pray the Lords parayer (forgive us our transgressions etc.)"

Yes was aware of that, but then why even address or note anything the Church Fathers
said; why not just use the Scriptures instead? If one subscribes to Scripture
interprets Scripture, and Bible alone I find it odd that Luther would quote Church Fathers
at all.

 

[Attejohannes]

I would agree with you on Papal supremecy and Purgatory, but I was thinking more or less with Ignatius the absolute authority of the Bishop, for Ignatius the Bishop really might just be the centre of the Christian community.

Yes, but one has to remember that the terminology regarding the different offices in the church was not very precise. For Polycarp the offices of presbyter and bishop seem almost identical. But the message is clear. The Christians should be obedient to their spiritual leaders (echoing the apostolic teaching, Hebrews 13, 7; 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1). It is, by the way interesting, that the Ignatian epistle to Romans is not addressed to the bishop nor is he greeted or even mentioned in the epistle.

However, if the spiritual leadership is in obvious error, then the obligation to obedience naturally ceases. This was the case when much of the hierarchy succumbed to Arianism, but the laity remained Orthodox.

 

[Attejohannes]

Yes was aware of that, but then why even address or note anything the Church Fathers
said; why not just use the Scriptures instead? If one subscribes to Scripture
interprets Scripture, and Bible alone I find it odd that Luther would quote Church Fathers
at all.

He quotes them either to agree or disagree. Just as we quote him, Calvin, Cajetan, Ignatios Lyola, Alphonse Liguori, Martin Chemniz, Pius IX or John Paul II, you name them in our discussion here. Luther was involved in an extremely intense debate on matters of life and death and eternal salvation, and he had quite a knowledge of the fathers, whose statements were used as ammunition by both sides. However, for Luther the final authority was the Scriptures, and if he found either the fathers or the councils to contradict them, he bowed to the Scriptures.

 

[aidanbradypop]

He quotes them either to agree or disagree. Just as we quote him, Calvin, Cajetan, Ignatios Lyola, Alphonse Liguori, Martin Chemniz, Pius IX or John Paul II, you name them in our discussion here. Luther was involved in an extremely intense debate on matters of life and death and eternal salvation, and he had quite a knowledge of the fathers, whose statements were used as ammunition by both sides. However, for Luther the final authority was the Scriptures, and if he found either the fathers or the councils to contradict them, he bowed to the Scriptures.

Not meaning to go off topic but who gave Luther the authority to decide that? How is he any different than the ECFs?

 

[MaryT777]

He quotes them either to agree or disagree. Just as we quote him, Calvin, Cajetan, Ignatios Lyola, Alphonse Liguori, Martin Chemniz, Pius IX or John Paul II, you name them in our discussion here. Luther was involved in an extremely intense debate on matters of life and death and eternal salvation, and he had quite a knowledge of the fathers, whose statements were used as ammunition by both sides. However, for Luther the final authority was the Scriptures, and if he found either the fathers or the councils to contradict them, he bowed to the Scriptures./QUOTE)

I understand he quotes them to agree or disagree but if he bowed to the Scriptures, again
what is the necessity to show who agrees or not? No need. He seemed to find it necessary to show he was right on this or that issue because the ECF “agreed”.
Same as the Catholic Church be we don’t subscribe to the Sola Scriptura system.

Mary.

 

[Attejohannes]

Not meaning to go off topic but who gave Luther the authority to decide that? How is he any different than the ECFs?

You hit the nail to the top. He is not different from the ECFs. Also his teachings have to be tested, and he is not infallible or any absolute authority. According to his own words he is just a future stinking sack of worms.

Maybe we could move a bit forward in this discussion, if you defined, who you consider as actual ECFs : Ignatios, Polycarp, Justin the Martyr or the later ones (Teretullian, Cyprian) or even the fourth century fathers (Augustinus, Jerome).

My argument is that among the second century ECFs we find writers with whom Protestants feel quite cosy, with the later ones we start to sniff popery, although we can agree with some aspects of Augustinus (Calvinists more than Lutherans).

 

[Attejohannes]

Attejohannes;10578754:

He quotes them either to agree or disagree. Just as we quote him, Calvin, Cajetan, Ignatios Lyola, Alphonse Liguori, Martin Chemniz, Pius IX or John Paul II, you name them in our discussion here. Luther was involved in an extremely intense debate on matters of life and death and eternal salvation, and he had quite a knowledge of the fathers, whose statements were used as ammunition by both sides. However, for Luther the final authority was the Scriptures, and if he found either the fathers or the councils to contradict them, he bowed to the Scriptures.

I do not remember, whether Luther ever cited ECFs (second century fathers), although he probably would have found them useful. I may be wrong (as usual), but I think that the apostolic fathers were in a way redetected in the 17th century. Luther’s favorites were Augustinus and - strangely enough Cyprian. Jerome he disliked

 

[pablope]

I think reading the church fathers is very useful and interesting and think all christians would benefit from seeing the incredibly strong faith of our ancestors. I don’t consider them dogmatic or divine in any way and have to disagree with them when their words don’t match scripture however.

.

Bu then this begs the question…according to who’s interpretation?

ECFs where also those who started sifting through the early church writings…and formed the basis of the NT canon…so how could their writings not match Scripture?

 

[Slowride]

Yes! “I AM” turly upset with this site. Come back to your first love.

 

[allhers]

When we read on the Early Church Fathers and their writings, we can see where they stood on matters such as the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the RP in the Eucharist.

How much do the Early Church Fathers play a part in your faith or denomination?

Does your faith value their teachings?

Have you ever really heard much about them? (I was surprised when I found out many people know nothing about them)

I saw this today on Our Sunday Visitor and thought I’d share it:
The Fathers of the Church Bible: Bringing together Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in one volume!
Each topic features the wisdom of one or more of the Church fathers including St. Augustine, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, and more
catalog.osv.com/Catalog.aspx?SimpleDisplay=true&ProductCode=T1307

 

[aidanbradypop]

You hit the nail to the top. He is not different from the ECFs. Also his teachings have to be tested, and he is not infallible or any absolute authority. According to his own words he is just a future stinking sack of worms.

Maybe we could move a bit forward in this discussion, if you defined, who you consider as actual ECFs : Ignatios, Polycarp, Justin the Martyr or the later ones (Teretullian, Cyprian) or even the fourth century fathers (Augustinus, Jerome).

My argument is that among the second century ECFs we find writers with whom Protestants feel quite cosy, with the later ones we start to sniff popery, although we can agree with some aspects of Augustinus (Calvinists more than Lutherans).

Each ECF was allowed to express his opinion just like two priest or bishops today may have a different view on a certain issue. Luckily, we have doctrines already defined today. Back then, they were trying to figure all this stuff out. For the 1st and 2nd century Fathers, we see great wisdom in their writing and homilies. Just like Luther, the ECFs were not infallible unless one was a Pope and then infalliblity would come into play. I agree that their teachings should be tested and the Church has throughout the centuries. I am not really for or against any of the Fathers when it comes to what century they lived in. I believe each Father was a product of his time and went on the knowledge he had.

Christ even said the He did not reveal everything to the Apostles. So with time, we slowly see these things come to light. Our understanding becomes greater and allows us to grasp the concepts better. The Holy Trinity, not mentioned directly in Sacred Scripture, gains form as you progress from Father to Father.

Please understand that unless a Church Father was a Pope, they were not infallible. You keep saying that and I want to stress that is not a Church Teaching. Each one did have authority just as Lutherans give Luther.