ECF, catholic or non catholic?

[6glargento]

I read the faith of the early fathers all the time directly. No need to go second hand.

BTW, I believe it was written by Gibbons.

i think he means “Faith of the early fathers” by william jurgens
two different books

Really?

Do you suppose it was authored by a Catholic promoting the claims of their church?

it woudn’t matter who compiled the book whether catholic or protestant, the church fathers wrote what they wrote and they were completly catholic, you have yet to provide any evidence for the contrary.

I also like reading the conversion strories of those that left Catholicism.

I then compare notes.

I am not impressed with any of the conversion stories of the above. I find they are basically used as propaganda today by too many people.

and stories of conversion of catholicism to protestantism isn’t used as propaganda?

I compare notes too and from what i gather, those who leave catholicism for protestantism usually do so because of emotional reasons or misunderstandings and distortions of what the church believes, whereas those who convert to catholicism usually do so based on actual historically evidence linking the catholic church as the true church.

I know what I left and why I did, Manny.

I don’t need to rehash it over and over again.

Maybe you need to study all the conversion stories of those that left your church.

It seems you are really unaware of all sides of this story.

the reason why people leave the church is do to a lack of faith in jesus christ and their own spiritual blindness

 

[Ignatius]

most catholics look to the early church fathers as being great defenders of the catholic faith and many protestants have converted to catholicism based on the teachings of the early church fathers. However one protestant on this forum, who was an ex catholic, said that the early church fathers kept him protestant. he said:

is this just ill will on his part, or do the writings of the ECF not point unequivically to catholic doctrine like we claim?

You notice he doesn’t give any specifics. That is because he can’t. The only Christian Church for the first 16 centuries after Christ is the Catholic Church.

 

[Atemi]

the reason why people leave the church is do to a lack of faith in jesus christ and their own spiritual blindness

Of course.

How could it be any other way?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Because just about all the ECFs held beliefs that contradict the RCC or are not taught by the RCC today.

They believed that these doctrines were from Apostolic tradition.

Surely most of them understood that future generations of Christians would believe as they did. They did not believe in the new teaching of “development of doctrine.”

That is a modern creation to explain all the changes.

…

So why did they hold Ecumenical Councils and local synods?

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed and defined at the Council of Nicaea due to the Arian heresy.

The Council of Ephesus defined which books belonged in the Christian Bible. On and on and on…

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Atemi, you still haven’t replied. Please show where all the teachings of the Catholic Church are not in accordance with the Early Church Fathers.

 

[NotWorthy]

The ECFs do not unequivocally point to Roman Catholic doctrine at all…but they do unequivocally point in many different directions for sure. If anything is consistent among the ECFs, it is their ability to disagree even on some of the most essential issues.
…

This would be a good time to provide an example.

Yes, they disagreed. And this helps us to understand the gyrations they went to in order to come to an understanding of the faith.

Aryanism would be a perfect example, but that does not prove the ECF’s weren’t Catholic, just that they weren’t perfect, which every Catholic should understand.

BTW, many of the writings of the ECF’s were not discovered until the last century. Not knowing what was in these writings, it would have been impossible for the Church to change it’s doctrines after the release of these writings or in anticipation of these discovery of these documents.

 

[Atemi]

Hello,

Atemi, you still haven’t replied. Please show where all the teachings of the Catholic Church are not in accordance with the Early Church Fathers.

First of all, I never claimed ALL the teachings of the RCC are not in accordance with the ECFs.

Secondly, the ECFs were barely in accordance with each other on many issues, nevermind being in accordance with the modern RCC.

Thirdly, I said that the ECFs would just about all be heretics according to modern RC teaching. This is true.

…

 

[Atemi]

So why did they hold Ecumenical Councils and local synods?

Defining doctrine is not equivalent to developing doctrine.

The two are actually opposites in reality.

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed and defined at the Council of Nicaea due to the Arian heresy.

No it was not developed. It was merely defined.

The Council of Ephesus defined which books belonged in the Christian Bible. On and on and on…

Trent defined which books belonged in the canon for Roman Catholicism, not Ephesus…but that is a different thread.

The early fathers and Apostles believed that the faith they taught and believed would be the same faith every Christian everywhere, and for all time, would believe.
…

 

[6glargento]

Thirdly, I said that the ECFs would just about all be heretics according to modern RC teaching. This is true.

…

how do you know this? You keep say this over and over again and never supstantiate your claim. You also never supstantiate your claim that the ECF did not believe in the development of doctrine, when the canon of scripture is proof that they did.

We on the other hand have shown throughout this website and other posts that the ECF taught catholic doctrine. Or maybe you just don’t like what the ECF had to say?

 

[NotWorthy]

Trent defined which books belonged in the canon for Roman Catholicism, not Ephesus…but that is a different thread.

Wrong, but that is another thread.

The early fathers and Apostles believed that the faith they taught and believed would be the same faith every Christian everywhere, and for all time, would believe.
…

This is the most accurate statement I’ve seen from you, Atemi. Good job!!!

Although, it’s a shame the Orthodox to some small degree, and the Reformers to a rather large degree had to ruin it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

First of all, I never claimed ALL the teachings of the RCC are not in accordance with the ECFs.

Secondly, the ECFs were barely in accordance with each other on many issues, nevermind being in accordance with the modern RCC.

Thirdly, I said that the ECFs would just about all be heretics according to modern RC teaching. This is true.

…

And I note that you did not provide ANY proof - not one shred - to back up your preposterous claims.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Hello,

And I note that you did not provide ANY proof - not one shred - to back up your preposterous claims.

He can’t. He does what trolls do best though, which is not citing anything they claim.

 

[Church_Militant]

Because just about all the ECFs held beliefs that contradict the RCC or are not taught by the RCC today.

They believed that these doctrines were from Apostolic tradition.

Surely most of them understood that future generations of Christians would believe as they did. They did not believe in the new teaching of “development of doctrine.”

That is a modern creation to explain all the changes.

…

He says. But does he offer any substantiating proof? [SIGN]NO.[/SIGN]

Hello,

Examples please, show where all the teachings of the Catholic Church are not in accordance with the Early Church Fathers.

Doesn’t provide any because there aren’t any.

What doctrines did the ECF disagree on? If this is out of context then should I begin another thread?

It’s not out of context at all. But when those who try to advance propaganda like Atemi has don’t provide any substantiation, what does that tell you about the allegation?

You notice he doesn’t give any specifics. That is because he can’t. The only Christian Church for the first 16 centuries after Christ is the Catholic Church.

Exactly! And the real glaring differences will prove to be with the n-Cs and their new winds of doctrines.

Hello,

Atemi, you still haven’t replied. Please show where all the teachings of the Catholic Church are not in accordance with the Early Church Fathers.

Still awaiting his proof…

First of all, I never claimed ALL the teachings of the RCC are not in accordance with the ECFs.

Dodge. Still no substance to his allegations, and we have shown that the real differences are with the new winds of doctrines concocted by men and now propagated as gospels by the post reformation step children.

Secondly, the ECFs were barely in accordance with each other on many issues, nevermind being in accordance with the modern RCC.

Another allegation without any substantive proof. Anyone else accept this as truth?

Thirdly, I said that the ECFs would just about all be heretics according to modern RC teaching. This is true.

Reiteration of propaganda does not make it true. No matter how many times it is repeated, though many may well be fooled into believing it. (at least for a time)

Who was it that said repetition of lies makes them more believable?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. " and “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The fact is that just about all the ECFs would be considered heretics by the RCC if they were alive today.

Atemi-

If they were alive today, they would recognize the fruit of their labors in the Church they helped to build.

And where there WAS disagreement between what they thought and wrote centuries ago and what the Church teaches today, they would be quick to embrace the Church’s position

BECAUSE THAT’S THE KIND OF MEN THEY WERE.

People today, of course, disagree with the Catholic Church and leave. The idea of submission to authority never even enters their independent, modern American minds.

This is significant.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I read the faith of the early fathers all the time directly. No need to go second hand.

BTW, I believe it was written by Gibbons.

Jurgens.

ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0814604323.01.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_AA240_SH20.jpg

ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0814610072.01.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_AA240_SH20.jpg
ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0814610218.01.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_AA240_SH20.jpg

 

[Randy_Carson]

I also like reading the conversion strories of those that left Catholicism.

I then compare notes.

I am not impressed with any of the conversion stories of the above. I find they are basically used as propaganda today by too many people.

I know what I left and why I did, Manny.

I don’t need to rehash it over and over again.

Maybe you need to study all the conversion stories of those that left your church.

It seems you are really unaware of all sides of this story.

…

I read an interesting quote not long ago, and I can’t put my finger on it at the moment, but it goes something like this:

“I have never met a person who truly and fully understood the Catholic faith and left the Church. Those who leave usually have a misunderstanding of or a personal issue with a doctrine they will not accept.”

I have to say, Atemi, that your understanding of Catholicism expressed in this forum does not lead me to believe that you really knew the faith that you abandoned.

And lest you raise an objection about those who have left knowing their doctrine - no, time and again in debate after debate and book after book, the ex-Catholics have revealed their ignorance of the true doctrine. I’m not saying that it never happens that a knowledgable Catholic leaves - that would be statistically unlikely - but I’m saying it doesn’t happen very often.

Conversely, those coming into the Church have usually examined the doctrines carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully. They are not embracing something they do not know, but rather what they have investigated at length - sometimes as bitter anti-Catholics initially - until at last the truth has won them over. Perhaps that’s why so many Pastors of Protestant churches have been coming in…their study of the Word of God leads them to the Catholic faith.

It is her book after all.

This is significant.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jurgens.

ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0814610218.01.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_AA240_SH20.jpg

Er, Atemi was referring to “Faith of the Fathers” by James Cardinal
Gibbons.
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0895551586.01.BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_V44234753_AA240_SH20.jpg

It seems to be a well-written Catholic Apologetics book, according to the Amazon reviews.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Understood.

I was providing the author that I think Mannyfit was referring to.

I was not contradicting, Atemi.

 

[NotWorthy]

Understood.

I was providing the author that I think the other poster(?) was referring to.

I was not contradicting, Atemi.

Yes, I agree. It seems Mr. Jergens book is much more thorough and considered the “condensed bible” of the Early Church Father’s writings.

I just wanted to show that Mr. Atemi’s memory is most adequate.

 

[The_Catholic]

I’m no expert on thelogy or the ECF, but when I read the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Wesley, Pat Robertson, or even Billy Grahm, they do not sound “catholic.” Their theology does not sound “catholic.” Then I read St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, Clement of Rome, etc., and they all sound “catholic” in comparison to the Church today.

But even though the ECF sounded “catholic,” they nevertheless did not agree on everything neither, isn’t that right? (Too tired to remember examples as of now )