How important are early church fathers, and teachings to non-Catholics?

[KathleenGee]

I think a good start would be worship because that is the time people came together…

The Episcopalians and Anglicans in various corners are very close to us…although I read here, there is great variety within them as well…

Note as well that churches (dioceses) always are in need of reform,…and Revelations was particular in showing us the need for perseverence not just for persecutions, but the far greater suffering of betrayal by our confreres and the inclination to backsliding and error.

These faults are everywhere, all the time. We are to pray constantly.

 

[izoid]

Yes given to the Jewish people only. The customs and rituals performed by the Jews do not apply to non-Jews. If that’s the case then every Christian in the world would be celebrating and observing all rituals prescribed by GOD to the jews that we read about in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Anything else you reference like the divine liturgy and the Mass is all man made.

All man made huh? THis is the false teachings of protestantism. When I was a protestant, I went on a mission trip to Turkey. I visited Antakya, which is Antioch, among other places. I had the privilege of being in the cave that Paul and Peter had their issues and guess what was in the center of the cave? An alter.

I visited the underground cities in Cappadoccia and guess what was in their churches, alters. How about the seven churches from Revelation. While some of the sites were nothing more than fields, those that had ruins clearly had alters at the centers of their places of worship. What about Ephesus you ask? That’s right, alters.

What am I getting at? The ancient church, the church that existed in the Biblical times and immediately thereafter all had the alter as the focal point in their places of worship. You assertion that Christ abolished it is unfounded and contradictory to historical and archeological evidence.

 

[Contarini]

They had no Bible back then man, at least, not as we have it now. Some of the scriptures weren’t even written yet!

Back when? Which Fathers are you talking about? And what dating for the NT do you accept? Do you hold the view (to which I’m certainly open) that some parts of the NT weren’t written till the middle of the 2nd century? Then your post makes sense–but obviously would apply only to the very early Fathers.

By Irenaeus’s time for sure the whole NT had been written, and the core books (Paul’s letters and the four Gospels) were accepted as canon, at least by Irenaeus and the emerging “Catholic Church” he represented.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Just as the title says. How important is it to those that are not Catholic, as to what the earliest Christians taught and practiced?

Should how they taught, practiced, and believed effect how you practice now?

Definitely. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I am not a member of the Roman Communion. When push comes to shove, your Communion is willing to discount the Fathers in deference to “doctrinal development” and later decisions by the Popes and Councils.

One non-doctrinal example: the huge opposition to the election of bishops by conservative Catholics. Why? It was good enough for the Fathers.

Another example (which you will claim is non-doctrinal, but I think the Fathers would disagree): your Communion’s blatant disregard for the early Church’s “one bishop, one city” rule (most recently underlined by Anglicanorum Coetibus).

The “ressourcement” movement of the 20th century did a lot of good. But the legacy of centuries of canon-law legalism and early modern absolutism remains powerful in your Communion.

Edwin

 

[Teneas]

Back when? Which Fathers are you talking about? And what dating for the NT do you accept? Do you hold the view (to which I’m certainly open) that some parts of the NT weren’t written till the middle of the 2nd century? Then your post makes sense–but obviously would apply only to the very early Fathers.

By Irenaeus’s time for sure the whole NT had been written, and the core books (Paul’s letters and the four Gospels) were accepted as canon, at least by Irenaeus and the emerging “Catholic Church” he represented.

Edwin

Yes, I hold the view, and if I am not mistaken some of the NT books were not written until the beginning or even the middle of the 2nd century. It is mainly about the very early Fathers that I spoke of there.

 

[Teneas]

Definitely. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I am not a member of the Roman Communion. When push comes to shove, your Communion is willing to discount the Fathers in deference to “doctrinal development” and later decisions by the Popes and Councils.

One non-doctrinal example: the huge opposition to the election of bishops by conservative Catholics. Why? It was good enough for the Fathers.

Another example (which you will claim is non-doctrinal, but I think the Fathers would disagree): your Communion’s blatant disregard for the early Church’s “one bishop, one city” rule (most recently underlined by Anglicanorum Coetibus).

The “ressourcement” movement of the 20th century did a lot of good. But the legacy of centuries of canon-law legalism and early modern absolutism remains powerful in your Communion.

Edwin

I was always under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that the teaching of the Eucharist has remained very firm since Christ instituted it himself. That it has never wavered on whether or not it was truly the body and blood of Christ himself. That it was always the focal point when even the earliest of Christians gathered together.

I am not saying that there were never talks, or discussions about the Eucharist being the body and blood, I am saying that it was always considered such. That those discussions about whether or not it was the actual body and blood ended up in the same conclusion, over and over again. That is was what the Church has always taught. The true Body and Blood of Christ himself.

Edit: YOu aren’t speaking of the Eucharist though are ya? I just reread it…think I have sat in front of the computer to long today… hehe

 

[CMatt25]

I was always under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that the teaching of the Eucharist has remained very firm since Christ instituted it himself. That it has never wavered on whether or not it was truly the body and blood of Christ himself. That it was always the focal point when even the earliest of Christians gathered together.

I am not saying that there were never talks, or discussions about the Eucharist being the body and blood, I am saying that it was always considered such. That those discussions about whether or not it was the actual body and blood ended up in the same conclusion, over and over again. That is was what the Church has always taught. The true Body and Blood of Christ himself.

It’s not that you’re necessarily right or wrong but maybe it’s just things weren’t as clear as you suggest. In Acts 2:46 the earliest disciples met daily with one accord in the temple and then broke bread in their homes as a meal. Augustine spoke of the bread as Christ’s body and the contents of the chalice as His blood. But he also spoke of how Christ’s flesh resurrected and how He is now at the right hand of God. Clement said to drink the blood of Jesus is to partake in the Lord’s immortality while at the same time speaking of spirtual blood and the spirit being the principle strength.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Definitely. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I am not a member of the Roman Communion. When push comes to shove, your Communion is willing to discount the Fathers in deference to “doctrinal development” and later decisions by the Popes and Councils.

One non-doctrinal example: the huge opposition to the election of bishops by conservative Catholics. Why? It was good enough for the Fathers.

Another example (which you will claim is non-doctrinal, but I think the Fathers would disagree): your Communion’s blatant disregard for the early Church’s “one bishop, one city” rule (most recently underlined by Anglicanorum Coetibus).

The “ressourcement” movement of the 20th century did a lot of good. But the legacy of centuries of canon-law legalism and early modern absolutism remains powerful in your Communion.

Edwin

what is the “one bishop one city rule”?