Early Church Fathers...Matter or Not?

[ChrisRedfield47]

Their writings do matter a lot to me, it gives me an idea of what the early Church believed and how they worshiped. If it wasn’t for their writings, I don’t know If I would be Catholic today.

For instance, things like the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist, Liturgy, and Marian devotion, all that is often in dispute by our protestant brothers. Had they not been found in the Early Church, I probably wouldn’t be Catholic by now. But they are, and it strengthens my faith to find these things in the earliest centuries. In fact, I cannot see myself ever as a protestant knowing what the Early Church believed and practiced, because they clearly were not protestant.

So my answer to your question:
Early Church Fathers…Matter or Not?
Yes. A big deal to me. Had the early Church been protestant, Id be protestant.

 

[Attejohannes]

Their writings do matter a lot to me, it gives me an idea of what the early Church believed and how they worshiped. If it wasn’t for their writings, I don’t know If I would be Catholic today.

For instance, things like the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist, Liturgy, and Marian devotion, all that is often in dispute by our protestant brothers. Had they not been found in the Early Church, I probably wouldn’t be Catholic by now. But they are, and it strengthens my faith to find these things in the earliest centuries. In fact, I cannot see myself ever as a protestant knowing what the Early Church believed and practiced, because they clearly were not protestant.

So my answer to your question:
Early Church Fathers…Matter or Not?
Yes. A big deal to me. Had the early Church been protestant, Id be protestant.

Not wishing to start an argument, but just demonstrating how differently we may regard the same sources. If anything, my reading of the apostolic fathers confirmed my protestant Faith. Ignatios, Polycarp, Digenetos etc. do not say a word of Papal supremacy, Purgatory, immaculate conception, Assumption etc, and the Eucharistic service described in Didache would probably be considered as invalid by present day dogmatics Catholics ( at least from the understanding I have obtained from the great concern regarding the tiniest minutiae regarding the liturgy by the traditional catholicism).

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Without knowing exactly your background I cannot comment, but I find it strange If Ignatios or Polycarp would sound very strange to those who are familiar with Pauline epistles. Some of the early apologetics are a bit strange stuff, when they resort to extremely allegorical interpretation of OT.

Are you familiar with Didache? I have always thought that it could be the “Church manual” of present day pentecostalists and charismatics.

I am now familiar with the Didache, but it wasn’t until I began discovering early Christian writing.

The church in which I was brought up was strictly biblical in nature. There was neither nothing else that would make a difference in interpreting Christian doctrine. Perhaps it is because I’m relatively young, but I really have never heard anything of Christian history in church in the immediate decades and centuries following the missions of the Apostles.

But if you understand the theology expressed in this kind of a church, it makes sense. To them, it’s all about how you interpret the Bible. So even if there were Christians in the past who espoused different beliefs - so what? It doesn’t matter.

Of course, a Catholic and Lutheran will understand a certain passage of the Bible differently than an Evangelical, but that’s an entirely separate discussion.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

For me it came down to this question, specifically about Ignatius of Antioch.

“is it possible that I can know more or be accurate on matters of faith Ignatius a martyr and man who was closest to the apostles, their teachings and church which they established.”

It seemed to me I needed to learn from Ignatius, not say Ignatius was wrong.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The NT books were used ( along with the OT Scriptures) at the end of the first century, as the example of the post- apostolic fathers demonstrates. If the Church later established the Canon, it does not mean that the writings did not have authority before that. Scriptures preceded the Canon just as the doctrine of the Trinity existed before Tertullian coined the word or the Council of Nicea formally defined it.

God miraculously preserved the Scriptures as the true guidance of His people in the midst of the doctrinal turmoils and human errors of the early centuries.** As soon as St. Paul had released any of his epistles from his hand, that writing became authoritative to the curches. **Not that the Churches first approved its content.

And by whose authority do you say that?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

For me it came down to this question, specifically about Ignatius of Antioch.

“is it possible that I can know more or be accurate on matters of faith Ignatius a martyr and man who was closest to the apostles, their teachings and church which they established.”

It seemed to me I needed to learn from Ignatius, not say Ignatius was wrong.

I had that same thought. Except for me it was more Irenaeus than Ignatius. I was particularly struck by this quote:

“When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.”

 

[Attejohannes]

I had that same thought. Except for me it was more Irenaeus than Ignatius. I was particularly struck by this quote:

“When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.”

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.

 

[Attejohannes]

And by whose authority do you say that?

If we do not take apostolic authority as a minimal common reference point, then it is useless to discuss.

 

[CMatt25]

However, each one of the thousands of disagreeing denominations all believe that the Spirit lead them to where they are now. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic? I thought that He always and everywhere lead to humble submission and unity - not to disagreement, division and discord(?)

In truth, Christ founded a Church, as He described in Matthew 18. He told Christians to take disputes there for a final resolution. Saint Paul had a disagreement with the Judaizers regarding circumcision. The only way to solve it was to go to the Church that Christ founded. The Church held a council, made their decision, and it has been final ever since. Acts 15

Rhetorical question: Which method more resembles Christ’s instructions: Humbly submitting to the Church being convinced that the Church is right, or splitting off and going your own way, convinced that you alone are right?

No for me it means not everyone, if anyone, is right on everything. And that all any of us can do is walk by faith since none of us were there in sight. And I’m able to understand and I’m perfectly fine with the concept that indeed it is faith I walk by. See I’m not of the ilk to need to think I know everything, that I am right on everything, nor that my finite human mind is even capable of completely understanding such an infinite and awesome God. At the same time I understand there are others who need every “i” dotted and “t” crossed. And that’s fine too. It’s a matter of different personalities

I have faith Christ will come again. And if in faith He does, it is then when I will know with 100% certainty. Even Catholics before they reach the point of believing they know the truth and that they are right, must first take a lot of steps of faith. Unlike atheists they must.have faith in God and unlike polytheists they must have faith in one God. Unlike those of the Jewish faith, they must place faith in the NT story of Christ, the cross and His resurrection. Faith in it’s human writers. Faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Church. As you know Protestants don’t share the Catholic Church’s definition of what constitutes the Church. Catholics must have faith in their church’s interpretation of Herself. Faith in Her interpretation of Scripture, in Her interpretation of ECFs and history. Faith that Jesus has never needed nor never needs to reform His Church. That’s why it is called the Catholic faith and all the others are called faiths too.

In the end I have faith God will know our hearts. Know our minds. Know our thought processes and our reasoning and has the capability of understanding why we understand Him as any of us do. And after He gives consideration to all of the above, I’m fine with leaving His final judgment in His hands and to His mercy as He wills it to be. That’s just the reality of faith.

 

[allhers]

I am a cradle Catholic so of course the Early Church Fathers were someone who I learned about very early in life going to Catholic Schools. (even in grade school).

I found this article on EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) a very interesting read.
I think it might be helpful to some of you who were not raised Catholic, or who perhaps were but didn’t learn much about the Early Church Fathers.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
It pretty long, but well worth the read as it is very educational.
For example–

Pseudo-Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Isa. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Epistle of Barnabas 6:7 [ca. A.D. 74]).

Clement

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!” (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).

…and others.

It is actually about The Deuterocanonicals, but fits in well with the way this thread is headed.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Especially when you consider we have so many translations & interpretations of scripture…

A man once told me something like this:

Question 21st century scholars on the interpretation of the meaning of John 6 and you will get a plethora of different answers. Question the ECF’s and you will get “what do you mean translate?”

Pick up the newest best seller from Amazon on salvation history and will read something like “and in Jesus’ day they understood this to mean…” Pick up an ECF writing and the cultural understanding is assumed and transcends to the reader as it was written for their own culture.

Makes sense to me!

I know what you mean. For many biblical scholars today, Philip was the last person the Ethiopian eunuch should have spoken to for an interpretation. Okay, he knew Jesus but didn’t have a PhD in biblical Hebrew and Greek, and probably didn’t even own a biblical commentary! I mean, really…

 

[BA11]

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.

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.

 

[aidanbradypop]

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.

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.

For many of them, there was no Scripture at the time and if it was not for the ECFs, we probably would not have the Scriptures that you read from today.

Catholics are most certainly right in all areas that the Church claims to be. That is what makes the Church so wonderful! The ECFs were Catholic so how can they not prove the Catholic Church?

 

[Attejohannes]

For many of them, there was no Scripture at the time and if it was not for the ECFs, we probably would not have the Scriptures that you read from today.

Catholics are most certainly right in all areas that the Church claims to be. That is what makes the Church so wonderful! The ECFs were Catholic so how can they not prove the Catholic Church?

Wishing not to argue, but could you just read the Ignatian epistles or the epistle of Polycarp or Justin the Martyr, and read them as If you read them for the first time. Then ask yourself, whether:

1. There is anything in these fathers that adds to or complements the doctrines we see in Pauline epistles or other books of NT
2. Whether or not they use recognizable quotes either from the OT or NT as authoritative references or whether they ever refer to any other authority
3. Whether there is even a remote hint to Papal supremacy, Purgatory, Immaculate conception or Assumption in these fathers

Then consider, whether they used the word " Catholic" in the same sense as the Catholics use it to day, and whether, If ECFs were resurrected now, they would recognized the same Church as they used to know. You may arrive to different conclusions than I, but at least it demonstrates that the same documents can be interpretes in rather different ways.

Someone already said earlier along this thread that many Catholics seem to think that the ECFs provide an irrefutable historical evidence of the catholic dogma, and If protestants just bothered to look at them, they will be convinced and converted. It is not quite that straightforward

 

[MaryT777]

Interesting take. So someone who lived a 100 or so years after Christ does not have authority to establish doctrine but a monk in the 1500s does? That is if you believe Luther had authority to change Church doctrine.

My thought exactly
Mary.

 

[Attejohannes]

aidanbradypop;10572353:

Interesting take. So someone who lived a 100 or so years after Christ does not have authority to establish doctrine but a monk in the 1500s does? That is if you believe Luther had authority to change Church doctrine.

My thought exactly
Mary.

Again. If you read the post apostolic fathers, you do not see any doctrinal statements that add anything to Scriptures. Certainly no second century reference to Papal supremacy, Purgatory, Immacultate conception or Assumption. From the protestant point of view, these were doctrinal innovations with no or very flimsy scriptural basis, and the Lutheran Reformation was not doctrinal innovations but pruning of some dangerous human inventions.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Wishing not to argue, but could you just read the Ignatian epistles or the epistle of Polycarp or Justin the Martyr, and read them as If you read them for the first time. Then ask yourself, whether:

1. There is anything in these fathers that adds to or complements the doctrines we see in Pauline epistles or other books of NT
2. Whether or not they use recognizable quotes either from the OT or NT as authoritative references or whether they ever refer to any other authority
3. Whether there is even a remote hint to Papal supremacy, Purgatory, Immaculate conception or Assumption in these fathers

Then consider, whether they used the word " Catholic" in the same sense as the Catholics use it to day, and whether, If ECFs were resurrected now, they would recognized the same Church as they used to know. You may arrive to different conclusions than I, but at least it demonstrates that the same documents can be interpretes in rather different ways.

Someone already said earlier along this thread that many Catholics seem to think that the ECFs provide an irrefutable historical evidence of the catholic dogma, and If protestants just bothered to look at them, they will be convinced and converted. It is not quite that straightforward

Justin Martyr on the Immaculate Conception: Jesus became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

There Justin Martyr speak on the Immaculate Conception. Although there were always a few dissenters, for the first thousand years of the Church there was a broad consensus among the Fathers on all the basic tenets of the faith, from Baptism to the Eucharist to the role of Tradition. As the most respected pastors and theologians of their day, the opinion of the Fathers set the standard for what is considered biblical Christian teaching.

While many people debate theology, few take the time to see what the early Church has said on different theological topics. While the Church Fathers were not infallible, their widespread consensus on issues should give weight to the theological positions they advanced.

In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Ok your turn to disagree.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Again. If you read the post apostolic fathers, you do not see any doctrinal statements that add anything to Scriptures. Certainly no second century reference to Papal supremacy, Purgatory, Immacultate conception or Assumption. From the protestant point of view, these were doctrinal innovations with no or very flimsy scriptural basis, and the Lutheran Reformation was not doctrinal innovations but pruning of some dangerous human inventions.

There was not “Scripture” in the first nor second century as you are trying to reference to.

 

[Attejohannes]

There was not “Scripture” in the first nor second century as you are trying to reference to.

There certainly were the authoritative OT Scriptures (“Law and Prophets”). Ignatios makes recognizable references to St Matthew and Pauline epistles, although certainly not using the " chapters and verse " convention we use now.

Regarding Justin the Martyr and Mary, he simply days with so many words that Mary was a Virgin, when she conceived. Not a word about her conception ( nor about her Assumption).

 

[aidanbradypop]

There certainly were the authoritative OT Scriptures (“Law and Prophets”). Ignatios makes recognizable references to St Matthew and Pauline epistles, although certainly not using the " chapters and verse " convention we use now.

Regarding Justin the Martyr and Mary, he simply days with so many words that Mary was a Virgin, when she conceived. Not a word about her conception ( nor about her Assumption).

Yes there was the Torah, but nothing set in stone as far the the NT is concerned.