ECF's did they follow current doctrine?

[6glargento]

**When you get done with these we can move on to how the ECF’s felt about the veneration of images next, sound fun? **

don’t bother, we already know that they supported the use of them

 

[noma]

If we take the authority of the Early Church Father’s seriously, then we must take seriously their teaching on the Magisterium, and on Apostolic Tradition.

Origen - “That alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from the ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (First Principles, Book 1, Preface 2)

Augustine - “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the Gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, Chap. 5)

St. Athanasius - “but about the faith they (the Bishops) wrote not, ‘it seemed good,’ but, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church’.” (Letter on the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia)

And many more…

With the weight of authority the Early Church Fathers place on the Catholic Church, such that its authority is seen even as the reason for believing the Gospels, we must say this:

That if we are to respect the Church Father’s central message, we must pass by them when they are wrong, for they speak against themselves where they speak against the teaching of the Church.

And contradiction, for those with reason, must be discarded.

 

[noma]

**
Clement of Alexandria refers to Jesus drinking wine at the Last Supper, citing Matthew 26:29, and he refers to the Last Supper as an example of how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking wine:**

“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness.” (The Instructor, 2:2

“Now, the blood of the Lord is two-fold: one is corporeal, redeeming us form corruption; the other is spiritual, and it is with that which we are anointed. To drink the blood of Jesus is to participate in His incorruption. Yet, the Spirit is the strength of the Word in the same way that the blood is of the body. Similarly, wine is mixed with water and the Spirit is joined to man; the first, the mixture, provides feasting that faith may be increased; the other, the Spirit, leads us on to incorruption. The union of both, of the blood and of the word, is called the Eucharist, a gift worthy of praise (worship) and surpassingly fair; those who partake of it are sanctified in body and soul, for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and the Word mystically.” (St. Clemet of Alexandria, Christ the Educator, Bk. 2, Chap. 2)

It seems as though maybe the Eucharist means many things, but I think St. Clement would suggest this meaning being primary.

 

[Atreyu]

Martin I think the time has come to start a new thread. Pick a particular author and maybe even a particular doctrine, and we can try and figure out what whether or not that person believed in the Catholic or the (/a) Protestant teaching on the matter. I really think that’s the only way we’ll make any progress here…