ECF's did they follow current doctrine?

[myfavoritmartin]

Clement of Alexandria
Like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria believed that there was a limit to how many times a Christian could repent of some sins and still be forgiven:

“He, then, who has received the forgiveness of sins ought to sin no more. For, in addition to the first and only repentance from sins (this is from the previous sins in the first and heathen life-I mean that in ignorance), there is forthwith proposed to those who have been called, the repentance which cleanses the seat of the soul from transgressions, that faith may be established. And the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing the future, foresaw both the fickleness of man and the craft and subtlety of the devil from the first, from the beginning; how that, envying man for the forgiveness of sins, he would present to the servants of God certain causes of sins; skilfully working mischief, that they might fall together with himself. Accordingly, being very merciful, He has vouch-safed, in the case of those who, though in faith, fall into any transgression, a second repentance; so that should any one be tempted after his calling, overcome by force and fraud, he may receive still a repentance not to be repented of. ‘For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shah devour the adversaries.’ But continual and successive repentings for sins differ nothing from the case of those who have not believed at all, except only in their consciousness that they do sin.” (The Stromata, 2:13)

Hermas
Sometimes the traditions of the early Roman churches contradict the traditions of Roman Catholicism. For example, regarding the forgiveness of post-conversion sins:
“Hermas reveals a great deal about attitudes in the church of Rome at the beginning of the second century…Hermas’s idea, however - that God has allowed his people, the church, just one historical opportunity for repentance - does not seem to have been representative of the normal view.” (Williston Walker, Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, and Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church [New York, New York: Scribner, 1985], pp. 111-112)

In fact, Roman bishops living several decades later would take a different view than that of Hermas, and they were criticized for it by those, like Hippolytus (also a Roman), who still held a view similar to that of Hermas. Regarding limitations on the repentance of believers, Hermas writes:
“For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has limits. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints; but to the heathen, repentance will be possible even to the last day.” (The Shepherd, 1:2:2)

Thus, we see that Roman Catholicism isn’t even consistent with the traditions of the Roman churches of the past.

 

[Atreyu]

Martin is it your argument that all the ECF’s constantly contradicted themselves?

 

[4given]

I don’t imagine all of them agreed 100% on everything just as we don’t today. One can have a tendency, no doubt, to read what they say in the light of one’s own beliefs.

 

[4given]

Eden:

Scripture Must Be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition

That’s somthing that we’re definitely going to have to disagree on.

 

[Psalm45_9]

You quoted Jerome! now it’s my turn, here is Jerome on the sufficiency of scripture… that is what we are talking about, RIGHT!

Jerome
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” - Jerome (Letter 48:20)

Jerome

"Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power[SIRACH 13:2] " [Jerome, *To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207]

“Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: 'wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age** (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles)” [Jerome, *To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119]

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,*’*Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” [Jerome, *To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159]

“Still our merriment** must not forget the limit set by Scripture,** and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, **remind me of the sacred volume, **for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ. (Mt. 3:16)” [Jerome, *To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45]

“Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!
I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.” (St. Jerome’s Prologue to Tobit)

 

[Psalm45_9]

"9. Let me call to my aid the example of the three children, (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3) **who, amid the cool, encircling fire, **sang hymns, (Song of Three Holy Children, found only in Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel 3) instead of weeping, and around whose turbans and holy hair the flames played harmlessly. Let me recall, too, the story of the blessed Daniel, in whose presence, though he was their natural prey, the lions crouched, with fawning tails and frightened mouths.(Daniel 6) Let Susannah also rise in the nobility of her faith before the thoughts of all; who, after she had been condemned by an unjust sentence, was saved through a youth inspired by the Holy Ghost (Susanna 45, or Daniel 13:45). In both cases the Lord’s mercy was alike shewn; for while Susannah was set free by the judge, so as not to die by the sword, this woman, though condemned by the judge, was acquitted by the sword. " [Jerome, Letter 1:9, NPNF2, VI:2]

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

It is sometimes hard to understand the context of St. Jerome.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Martin is it your argument that all the ECF’s constantly contradicted themselves?

You know, Bible believing churches contradict each other too. Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, others don’t. Baptisits insisit that the only authentic form of baptism is by immersion and thus Presbyterians are wrong because they baptise by infusion and they baptize infants. (However, both denominations do not believe that baptism is a sacrament.) High Church denominations believe Jesus is somewhat present in the Eucharist, Low Church denominations believe the Lord’s Supper is a purely symbolic fellowship memorial. There are denominations the uphold a believer can loose salvation, others say scripture says otherwise.

The ECF are not on the same level of scripture, they are fallible beings, however they give us great insight into the beliefs and social issues of the early church. They have aided the Magesterium in determining doctrines, but they themselved do not. There were ECFs who disagreed on the natures of Christ.

 

[E.E.N.S]

That’s somthing that we’re definitely going to have to disagree on.

It’s understandable that you would say that. Let me ask you, what do you think is the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[DesertBrother]

Nobody was interpreting Scripture outside Church teaching for the first thousand plus years. People didn’t own Bibles unless they were very wealthy, and were only able to hear the Word of God during the Mass. Bibles were hand copied (by Benedictine monks) until the invention of the Printing Press in the 15th century. Even after that, most of the world was unable to read, but was still able to hear the word of God from their priest. Until people trusted their own private interpretation of Scripture, there was none of this bickering about who was right. If we’re supposed to rely on the Bible alone, trusting our own interpretations with no authority over us, who’s interpretation is correct? If all Bible Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret correctly, why do they all disagree?

 

[Stephen_C]

Promise me you’ll read these;
titus3:5
eph 2:8:9
galatian2:21
I LOVE YOU MY BROTHER!
Simon

Write em’ down …pleeez

Ok, I read these quotes. Again you have taken a few snippets, taken completely out of context to somehow try to fit your view. Kinda like what you are doing with the writtings of our ECF’s.

BTW: So you really think us Catholic’s believe we are saved by works? That we are not “saved” That we are spiritully dead?

 

[DesertBrother]

Posted by 4given: That’s somthing that we’re definitely going to have to disagree on.

Nobody was interpreting Scripture outside Church teaching for the first thousand plus years. People didn’t own Bibles unless they were very wealthy, and were only able to hear the Word of God during the Mass. Bibles were hand copied (by Benedictine monks) until the invention of the Printing Press in the 15th century. Even after that, most of the world was unable to read, but was still able to hear the word of God from their priest. Until people trusted their own private interpretation of Scripture, there was none of this bickering about who was right. If we’re supposed to rely on the Bible alone, trusting our own interpretations with no authority over us, who’s interpretation is correct? If all Bible Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret correctly, why do they all disagree?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I pray for you you my friend that you read and study with an open mind, acts 17:11

That’s precisely how many of us on these forums became Catholic!

I pray for you to do the same, brother.

 

[Eden]

I can respond writer by writer, and I will but kind of as a response to your massive posts I’ll do what you’ve done you spoke of penance and then listed writers… I’ll do the same.

Ambrose seems to have agreed with Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria regarding limitations on penance for some sins:

You stated that Ambrose and the other ECFs you named sounded Protestant (despite the fact that there was no such thing in their day). So, I showed you that the ECFs believed priests had the power to forgive sins in a sacrament called Penance. And you respond with the reply about “limitations on penance”? I don’t see how this is a contradiction to Catholic teaching. But, as a Protestant, it is your job to protest the Catholic Church to justify your church’s existence. So… good job?

 

[Eden]

That’s somthing that we’re definitely going to have to disagree on.

The question isn’t whether or not you agree with it. The question is whether or not the ECFs were Catholic. The ECFs myfavoritmartin chose plainly referred to Church tradition, yet he wants us to belief they “sounded Protestant”.

 

[Eden]

Next up Ambrose…

Ambrose
**“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” **- Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

What this quote means is that the Catholic Church does not teach anything in contradiction to the Scriptures. The Church Fathers clearly affirmed the material sufficiency of the Scriptures. But these quotes do not support the novel idea that the Church Fathers embraced sola scriptura. When one examines the faith of these very same Fathers one can find equally forceful and authoritative testimony on behalf of Tradition and a teaching Church (some of them which I provided above and to which you were responding). Therefore, when the Church Fathers speak on sufficiency and authority of Scripture they do so not in a vacuum but within the context of the Church and her inerrant Tradition. The Fathers never separated Scripture from the Church and her Tradition.

“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

How is this contradictory to the fact that the ECFs were Catholic? Here is what the first Council of Nicea declared, among other things:

• Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
• Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
• Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
• Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
• Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate
• Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
• Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
• Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
• Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
• Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
• Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
• Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
• Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
• Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
• Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
• Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
• Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
• Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
• Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
• Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.
  This list resembles your church, how?

 

[E.E.N.S]

The question isn’t whether or not you agree with it. The question is whether or not the ECFs were Catholic. The ECFs myfavoritmartin chose plainly referred to Church tradition, yet he wants us to belief they “sounded Protestant”.

LOL @ “sounded protestant” They sound anything but protestant! In fact they sound a heck of a lot more Catholic than most Catholics today!

 

[Eden]

John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom didn’t agree with Roman Catholicism’s low view of the clarity of scripture:

“All things are dear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)

Again, I don’t see how this contradicts teachings of the Catholic Church.

Roman Catholics often cite Acts 8:30-31 as evidence that reading scripture by ourselves, without the RCC interpreting it for us, is dangerous. But John Chrysostom reached just the opposite conclusion. Though other people can help us understand scripture, we don’t need their help. Chrysostom saw Acts 8:30-31 as an example of how we should read scripture for ourselves more often:

I believe you may have lifted this word for word from NTRMIN.org. Eric Svendsen has been discredited many times by Catholic apologists. For instance, the heos hou debate with Robert Sungenis. Svendsen also does not have a valid Ph.D.

“But many in these times, even when they come to church, do not know what is read; whereas the eunuch, even in public (ep agoras) and riding in his chariot, applied himself to the reading of the Scriptures. Not so you: none takes the Bible in hand: nay, everything rather than the Bible. Say, what are the Scriptures for? For as much as in you lies, it is all undone. What is the Church for? Tie up the Bibles: perhaps the judgment would not be such, not such the punishment: if one were to bury them in dung, that he might not hear them, he would not so insult them as you do now. For say, what is the insult there? That the man has buried them. And what here? That we do not hear them. Say, when is a person most insulted - when he is silent, and one makes no answer, or, when he does speak and is unheeded? So that the insult is greater in the present case, when He does speak and thou wilt not hear: greater the contempt.” (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 19)

Again this is not in contradiction to the Church and you have misread the quote regarding “tying up the Bibles”. Do you know what a “homily” is? It sounds to me like St. John Chrysostom is saying to his parishioners that it is more of an insult to hear the Scriptures and not take them to heart than it would be for the Church to tie them up and bury them in dung.

The entire homily is here:

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume20/chrysostom2005.cfm

I don’t know if you know this, but Eastern Catholics use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. He was not a Protestant. Here is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:

ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html

(“Theotokos” in the liturgy, by the way, means “Mother of God” in Greek)

 

[Eden]

You quoted Jerome! now it’s my turn, here is Jerome on the sufficiency of scripture… that is what we are talking about, RIGHT!

St. Jerome is a “Doctor of the Church”. He was in Rome with Paulinus of Antioch to attend a council which Pope Damasus was holding to deal with the Antioch schism. Appointed secretary of the council, Jerome acquitted himself so well that, when it was over, Pope Damasus kept him there as his own secretary. At the Pope’s request he prepared a revised text, based on the Greek, of the Latin New Testament, the current version of which had been disfigured by "wrong copying, clumsy correction, and careless interpolations."

Along with his official duties he was fostering a new movement of Christian asceticism among a group of noble Roman ladies. Several of them were to be canonized, including Albina and her daughters Marcella and Asella, Melania the Elder, who was the first of them to go to the Holy Land, and Paula, with her daughters, Blesilla and Eustochium. The tie between Jerome and the three last-mentioned women was especially close, and to them he addressed many of his famous letters.

Jerome
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” - Jerome (Letter 48:20)

“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” - Jerome (Letter 53:10)

“When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world’s highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the scriptures” - Jerome (Letter 107:7)

The Paula of whom he speaks is a saint in the Catholic Church.
Why would a Protestant be going to Councils held by Pope Damasus and then be retained as the Pope’s secretary? Why would St. Jerome have undertaken his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) at the request of the Pope, if he was Protestant?

The fact is, you have again misunderstood the context in which St. Jerome wrote those letters. He was thoroughly Catholic.

And, hey, look at this:

"While at Rome in the time of Pope Damasus, he (St. Jerome) had composed a book on the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary against one Helvidius, who had maintained that Mary had not remained always a virgin but had had other children by St. Joseph, after the birth of Christ. This and similar ideas were now again put forward by a certain Jovinian, who had been a monk. Paula’s son-in-law, Pammachius, sent some of this heretical writing to Jerome, and he, in 393, wrote two books against Jovinian."

St. Jerome has been a popular subject with artists, who have pictured him in the desert, as a scholar in his study, and sometimes in the robes of a cardinal, because of his services for Pope Damasus.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=10

Are you seeing now how desperate you are sounding by picking out vague passages from these ECFs to make them “sound Protestant” when they were so clearly Catholic, myfavoritmartin?

 

[E.E.N.S]

You quoted Jerome! now it’s my turn, here is Jerome on the sufficiency of scripture… that is what we are talking about, RIGHT!

Jerome
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” - Jerome (Letter 48:20)

“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” - Jerome (Letter 53:10)

“When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world’s highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the scriptures” - Jerome (Letter 107:7)

Let’s see if Jerome really thought that Scripture is sufficient:

*Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? *Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 A.D. 382]).

 

[Eden]

Doctor of the Church

Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine. In the Western church four eminent Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages : St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The “four Doctors” became a commonplace among the Scholastics, and a decree of **Pope Boniface VIII **(1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles in the whole Church is contained in his sixth book of Decretals (cap. “Gloriosus”, de relique. et vener. sanctorum, in Sexto, III, 22).

In the Eastern Church three Doctors were pre-eminent: St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzin. The feasts of these three saints were made obligatory throughout the Eastern Empire by** Pope Leo VI,** the Wise, the deposer of Photius.

newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm

It is amazing to me that out of all the ECFs you could have chosen, half of the men you mentioned are recognized as “Doctors of the Church”.

And, by the way, it wasn’t just St. Jerome amongst the ECFs you chose who wrote against the heresy that Mary was not a perpetual virgin and that she had other children:

St. Ambrose of Milan (+397) along with St. Jerome (+420) defended the Perpetual virginity of Mary against Jovinian and Helvidius, respectively, whose writings stated that Mary had other children. The great Latin Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, supports the perpetual virginity of Mary and compares it to the Resurrection of the Lord who had the power to "pass through closed doors. ‘’(In.20:19)
campus.udayton.edu/mary//meditations/EVERVIRGIN.html