ECF, catholic or non catholic?

[Mannyfit75]

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.

No. I mean read “Faith of Our Fathers” by William Jurgens. His three volume set covers Christianity after the Apostolic Age, and I have read others reading it, and it was Jurgen’s book that convince them that the ECF are Catholic.

Really?

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

It was William A. Jurgen is a Catholic priest and a historian.

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

I read those as well but their reasons was the lack of understanding of the Catholic faith. I have read both sides and I am convince that Jesus Christ establish One Church, and that Church is Catholic.

This testimony is proven by converts to the faith, and the testimony of the ECF, as well as those written in Scripture.

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.

Do you have that much hatred of the teachings of the Catholic Church that is why you left?

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

You need to pray to the Holy Spirit and COME Back to the Catholic Church.

Your Church lacks Real Presence of Jesus Christ. Protestant lack valid sacraments nor do they have valid. Some claim to have real presence of Jesus but I since they left the Catholic Church, their sacrament are no longer valid.

I truly think you need to come Home. In fact, I desire all Protestants to return to Rome. They lack Fullness of Truth.

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.

I did and most of them left out of anger of the Catholic Church. I read the conversion from Protestant to Catholic. Most embrace their Protestant heritage, and they feel complete as becoming Catholic.

I see more charity writings on Ex-Protestants than Ex-Catholics.

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

I am well aware. I attest to that in real life. Many Ex-Catholic I know in College have misconception of Catholic doctrines and dogmas.

I myself have difficulty until I read arcticles here from Catholic Answers and fellow Catholics. Since it is 3 pm. I will pray for your conversion. I’m going to pray the Divine Mercy Prayer now…

God be with you.

 

[Atemi]

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

Thanks for all the images, but Manny said “Faith of Our Fathers”

I can only assume he was saying what he meant.

 

[ssejllenrad]

Ummm… Still no specifics till now?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks for all the images, but Manny said “Faith of Our Fathers”

I can only assume he was saying what he meant.

I meant to type “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by William A. Jurgens. In fact, I just received the three volume set and another book called The Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina.

I’m sorry if I had the wrong title of the Books but the author is William A. Jurgens.

 

[E.E.N.S]

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.

…

I have yet to see you respond to the many requests for some specific citations.

(BTW, I read the ECF’s before my conversion to the Catholic Faith (what little I could find as a protestant), and that quickly lead me to see that the ECF were not what I had thought they were - they were indeed Catholic!)

 

[NotWorthy]

I just received the three volume set and another book called The Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina.

Wonderful, WONDERFUL Book!!! I know you’ll enjoy it, Manny!

 

[Janet_S]

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

Here’s what Newman had to say:

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
John Henry Newman

newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html
History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

*And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. {8} Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicæa and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever *Gibbon. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

"Atemi:

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

But you did say:

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

So, save for divinity of Christ, the and the Trinity, etc., we have everything else wrong?

Defining doctrine is not equivalent to developing doctrine.

The two are actually opposites in reality.

No it was not developed. It was merely defined.

Um…no. Development of doctrine means 1) formally defining doctrine, and 2) the understanding which comes from such a definition.

Atemi, I’ve noticed a trend with many of your posts, not just this tread. You make all sorts of unsubstantiated accusations, profess about what you’ve read, and don’t give any kind of a reference! For Truth’s sake, Atemi, at least give us some names! You haven’t even done that!

 

[Atemi]

(BTW, I read the ECF’s before my conversion to the Catholic Faith (what little I could find as a protestant), and that quickly lead me to see that the ECF were not what I had thought they were - they were indeed Catholic!)

I know, I know.

And the Traditionalists say the ECFs were them, and the Orthodox say the ECFs were them, etc.

Everybody wants to claim the ECFs for themselves and use them to forward whatever position they presently hold.

I know of folks that said they read the early fathers and became a Roman Catholic. They then read the early fathers again and suddenly discovered that the ECFs were actually Orthodox and not Roman Catholic after all…

 

[6glargento]

I know, I know.

And the Traditionalists say the ECFs were them, and the Orthodox say the ECFs were them, etc.

Everybody wants to claim the ECFs for themselves and use them to forward whatever position they presently hold.

I know of folks that said they read the early fathers and became a Roman Catholic. They then read the early fathers again and suddenly discovered that the ECFs were actually Orthodox and not Roman Catholic after all…

but how many ppl have read the early church fathers and become protestant? we see in the ECF teachings on the euacharist, baptism, priesthood ect.

we don’t see them teaching protestant doctrines

 

[ABostonCatholic]

I know of folks that said they read the early fathers and became a Roman Catholic. They then read the early fathers again and suddenly discovered that the ECFs were actually Orthodox and not Roman Catholic after all…

That’s not surprising. American Protestants are largely unaware that the Orthodox Church even exists. So if they read the ECF’s, they immediately think they’re Catholic. But if they read certain fathers, especially those beloved by the East, they may come to think that they’re orthodox once they learn more about orthodoxy. The theological differences between the Orthodox and the Catholics were not well grounded yet. That’s why it took a millenium for the two to formally split.

But it’s much hard to go from Orthodox or Catholic to Protestant by means of the early Church. If there is anyone that can get you there, it’s Saint Augustine because he has had so much influence on Protestant doctrine.

 

[rtconstant]

I know, I know.

And the Traditionalists say the ECFs were them, and the Orthodox say the ECFs were them, etc.

Everybody wants to claim the ECFs for themselves and use them to forward whatever position they presently hold.

I know of folks that said they read the early fathers and became a Roman Catholic. They then read the early fathers again and suddenly discovered that the ECFs were actually Orthodox and not Roman Catholic after all…

Well that is not surprising. The Orthodox are Catholic as well. Our split is more political in nature. What minor theological differences we have are still based within the doctrines of the early Church and were held before the schizm for centuries without much fallout. After the political issues arose that caused the split the theological differences became dramatized to justify our mutual sin in letting worldly issues split Christ’s Church.

To be honest I almost went Orthodox myself when I converted from Protestantism. So yes reading the ECF’s will lead one to Christ’s Church which exists today in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. I think most of the posters here are assuming that is understood.

Also as has been stated before I’ve (and I doubt anyone else has) never heard of anyone who left either the Orthodox or Catholic Churches to become protestant because they immersed themselves in the history and teachings of the ECF’s.

After spending 30 years in the SBC and meeting many Catholic converts I never met one that was knowledgable in Catholic doctrine. Either they married out (biggest reason), were upset about something or they were just barely nominal Catholics. Without fail whenever an ex-Catholic claims that they were well grounded in the Church but still converted one soon finds out that these converts have barely even the most rudimentary grasp of Church doctrine.

 

[Atemi]

Well that is not surprising. The Orthodox are Catholic as well. Our split is more political in nature.

Except for the most important issues of all: ecclesiology and authority.

What minor theological differences we have are still based within the doctrines of the early Church and were held before the schizm for centuries without much fallout. After the political issues arose that caused the split the theological differences became dramatized to justify our mutual sin in letting worldly issues split Christ’s Church.

I am always told Christ has one Body and it can never be split.

To be honest I almost went Orthodox myself when I converted from Protestantism. So yes reading the ECF’s will lead one to Christ’s Church which exists today in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Again, Christ only has ONE church: one Body of Christ.

That ONE church is not the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church…even according to RC doctrine.

Only one of those churches can be Christ’s church. The other is schismatic and even heretical in some fashion.

There can be no other way.

Also as has been stated before I’ve (and I doubt anyone else has) never heard of anyone who left either the Orthodox or Catholic Churches to become protestant because they immersed themselves in the history and teachings of the ECF’s.

I have immersed myself in the ECFs and am more solidly non-Catholic than ever because of it.

I think it may be what you immerse yourself in: God’s inerrant and perfect Word…or fallible and often contradicting early fathers.

We must all pick what we value to immerse ourselves into.

After spending 30 years in the SBC and meeting many Catholic converts I never met one that was knowledgable in Catholic doctrine.

And when I was a Catholic, I never met one Catholic that was knowledgable in Baptist doctrine.

What does that mean?

Either they married out (biggest reason), were upset about something or they were just barely nominal Catholics. Without fail whenever an ex-Catholic claims that they were well grounded in the Church but still converted one soon finds out that these converts have barely even the most rudimentary grasp of Church doctrine.

I know…because if they undertood RC doctrine they would never have left.

I know. I hear the same all the time.

If that was actually true, then maybe it would have more of an effect on me.

…

 

[6glargento]

I have immersed myself in the ECFs and am more solidly non-Catholic than ever because of it.

I think it may be what you immerse yourself in: God’s inerrant and perfect Word…or fallible and often contradicting early fathers.

We must all pick what we value to immerse ourselves into.

wow you’re doing alot of talking but fail to provide any evidence for what you are saying

 

[ABostonCatholic]

I have immersed myself in the ECFs and am more solidly non-Catholic than ever because of it.

I think it may be what you immerse yourself in: God’s inerrant and perfect Word…or fallible and often contradicting early fathers.

I get it now. When we speak of the Early Church Fathers, we mean people like Justin Martyr, but you mean Sacred Scripture.

And when I was a Catholic, I never met one Catholic that was knowledgable in Baptist doctrine.

Ahem…I think what he said was that among Catholic CONVERTS to the SBC none of them knew Catholic teaching well. It might be that you never met Catholics knowledgable of Baptist doctrine. That’s fine, but not comparable to the statement that he made. You should have said you never met any converts from the Baptist Church to the Catholic Church that knew their Baptist faith well. If that’s what you meant, that’s fine. I’m sure they’re there. Many of them, like many converts from Catholicism, probably converted because of marital reasons. But either way, you’ve now met a convert from the SBC to the Catholic Church, and I think I know the basics of Baptist doctrine fairly well.

 

[Atemi]

I get it now. When we speak of the Early Church Fathers, we mean people like Justin Martyr, but you mean Sacred Scripture.

No. That is not quite what I meant, though you really cannot get any earlier than the Apostolic witness itself.

Ahem…I think what he said was that among Catholic CONVERTS to the SBC none of them knew Catholic teaching well.

Ahh. OK. Fair enough.

But the odds are if you meet any Catholic at all, he/she will not know Catholic teaching well.

I know devout Catholics who still do not know Catholic teaching very well. Converts or not, most Catholics just do not understand their own church’s teachings.

This is not a jab, just a fact.

The question is: whose fault is that?

Personally, I find the Christian faith to be utterly simple, but that is just me I guess.

…

 

[Janet_S]

No. That is not quite what I meant, though you really cannot get any earlier than the Apostolic witness itself.

Ahh. OK. Fair enough.

But the odds are if you meet any Catholic at all, he/she will not know Catholic teaching well.

I know devout Catholics who still do not know Catholic teaching very well. Converts or not, most Catholics just do not understand their own church’s teachings.

This is not a jab, just a fact.

The question is: whose fault is that?

Personally, I find the Christian faith to be utterly simple, but that is just me I guess.

…

The Christian faith can be simple or complicated depending on how much depth you want to get into.

As an example of what I mean, you can explain basic biology to a child on his/her level. You can teach him/her about the cells, tissues, and organs that make up a body in a way that he/she can simply understand. Yet if you go to college, you can spend a whole career studying just the cell or even only one process in a cell.

It’s the same with religion. There is a simple message to the gospel–Christ is our savior. But there are limitless depths to that truth. The Catholic Church has been contemplating that truth for 2000 years.

It is no different for Catholics and Protestants. I guarantee that you could fill a library with Protestant commentaries (of differing and similar opinions) on the Gospel of John alone.

 

[Church_Militant]

But the odds are if you meet any Catholic at all

, he/she will not know Catholic teaching well.The very same thing can validly be said of n-Cs, though most that I have known have sought to assert that it is not true, but in one on one discussions I have found this to be the case. This is also what I found to be true in the years that I served as a deacon or Sunday School teacher or in having a Bible study group in my home.

I know devout Catholics who still do not know Catholic teaching very well. Converts or not, most Catholics just do not understand their own church’s teachings.

Which is still essentially irrelevant, except in your own case.

I have found that with very few exceptions, the n-Cs who tend to talk the most smack about Catholicism know least about it (regardless of what they were raised) and are equally ignorant of the Word of God or their own faith.

This is not a jab, just a fact.

Ditto.

The question is: whose fault is that?

Theirs…

Personally, I find the Christian faith to be utterly simple, but that is just me I guess.

And I find it as complex as a beautiful diamond and discover and explore some new facet(s) every day.

The Christian faith can be simple or complicated depending on how much depth you want to get into.
…
It’s the same with religion. There is a simple message to the gospel–Christ is our savior. But there are limitless depths to that truth. The Catholic Church has been contemplating that truth for 2000 years.

It is no different for Catholics and Protestants. I guarantee that you could fill a library with Protestant commentaries (of differing and similar opinions) on the Gospel of John alone.

This is very true.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Christian faith can be simple or complicated depending on how much depth you want to get into.

It is quite simple. To do the Will of God.

What we’ve tended to mess up is how do you do the Will of God? Catholics tend to do this by obeying the Church that Christ left us.

 

[Church_Militant]

It is quite simple. To do the Will of God.

What we’ve tended to mess up is how do you do the Will of God? Catholics tend to do this by obeying the Church that Christ left us.

Which is scripturally appointed to teach us these things, right?