Obstacles on the Road to Rome

[djrakowski]

E.E.N.S.:

I personally really like the three volume set entitled The Faith of the Early Church Fathers by Jergens.

EXCELLENT! This should be exactly what I need.

Dan

 

[Mickey]

djrakowski:

Well, I want to go back as far as I can in reading early Christian writers. I have lots of stuff that was written in the 19th and 20th centuries about specific apologetic topics, but I’d like to know about what happened in the church at the very beginning, or as close to it as I can get. So I guess I would be looking for stuff like Polycarp, etc?

Dan

E.E.N.S. suggestion is very good. This website is interesting:
staycatholic.com/early_church_fathers.htm

Also, do an internet search for the epistles of St Ignatius of Antioch. He is one of my favorites! Enjoy!

Blessings to you,
Mickey

 

[CARose]

djrakowski:

… I have one struggle, however, and this is it: how do I know that something is right simply because a lot of early Christians, or a few influential early Christians, believed it? Is it on the basis of these folks’ close contact with the events immediately following the death of the Lord?

Dan

Hi Dan,

I hope you don’t mind if I weigh in on your thread. I’ve only read the posts on this page, so please excuse me if I’m repeating things that you already know and have discussed on the previous page of posts.

First, I’d like to say welcome. I think it’s wonderful the way the Holy Spirit has been waking people the richness of the Catholic Church and I’m glad to learn that you are willing to give it your open and honest assessment. Throughout your journey, I’d like to encourage you to pray on any aspect of the church which troubles you, requesting assistance in seeing the truth as Christ would desire you to know it. The Holy Spirit is a wonderful guide and will bring you to the truth if you ask humbly and seek for truth, regardless of the consequences.

That said, with regards to your question, as to how can you know that the things understood and taught by the early Church Fathers had any bearing on the Truth as Christ intended us to know it. My answer is this, that Christ promised us that he was establishing a Church, His Church, which would be with us until the end of time and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

As you know by now, as Catholics, we firmly believe that this Church exists in the Catholic Church, that Christ has left for us a living legacy to retain and communicate His truth. We believe that Truth, being of and from God, is immutable, unchangeable. So, are the truths taught by these Early Church Fathers the same truths as taught by the Catholic Church or another non-Catholic Christian Church? If these men were not correct, where did Christ leave a reliable, accessable deposit of Truth? How has this alternate repository of the Faith been transmitted and made available to men throughout the ages?

I think that in this case, since the promise of permanence was made by God himself, who is incapable of a lie, we really can simply seek for an unwavering source of truth from the day of Christ forward. To my knowledge, the only candidate for such a position is the Catholic Church. Her teachings are consistant with most of what the early Fathers state. And when there are differences, it is the individual Fathers who erred, as the Magesterium, in union with the Pope have been assured infallibility so that we might know whom to believe when a difference arises. We were assured by Paul that the Church would be the pillar and Foundation (or bulwarks) of Truth, and so it is.

I hope this helps.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

I guess it seems to me that the Catholic Church, in a sense, “creates” sins, by binding the conscience of the believer in matters that, so far as we know, Jesus Himself never spoke about. What I mean is, a certain activity or belief might be completely acceptable, but then the Church makes a firm declaration about it, and what was once innocent now becomes sin.

Did Jesus ever speak about the moral issues involving of fetal stem cell research, or *in vitro * fertilization? Certainly there are going to arise moral issues that Jesus never explicitly addressed – that is why he founded his church upon men and vested certain men to speak with authority in his name. This system would break down if it wasn’t for the fact that Jesus has sent the Holy Spirit to keep his church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

As for men not knowing that what they do is sinful, how is this anything new? God reveals to man what is sinful, and men find out that what they are doing is wrong! Paul addresses this very issue in his letter to the Romans. When Paul learned the divine revelation of the Ten Commandments as a Jew, he also became aware that coveting was sin. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Romans 7:7
A sinful action is always sinful, though a man may be unaware that what he is doing is sinful. A man isn’t innocent of sin that he commits because of invincible ignorance, but God won’t hold him culpable for his sinful behavior if he truly acted in invincible ignorance.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1792** Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

---

INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Lack of knowledge, either of fact of law, for which a person is not morally responsible. This may be due to the difficulty of the object of the knowledge, or scarcity of evidence, or insufficient time and talent in the person, or any other factor for which he is not culpable.

(Etym. Latin in, not + vincibilis, easily overcome: invincibilis.)

VINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Lack of culpable knowledge for which a person is morally responsible. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence.

One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one’s lack of effort to clear up the ignorance.

That person is crassly ignorant when the lack of knowledge is not directly willed but due to neglect or laziness; as a result the guilt is somewhat lessened, but in grave matters a person would still be gravely responsible.

A person has affected ignorance when one deliberately fosters it in order to not be inhibited in what one wants to do; such ignorance is gravely wrong when it concerns serious matters.

(Eytm. Latin vincibilis, easily overcome; ignorantia, want of knowledge or information.)

Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S.J

 

[Matt16_18]

E.E.N.S.:

I personally really like the three volume set entitled The Faith of the Early Church Fathers by Jergens.

Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers is a tremendous resource because it includes an Index of Scriptural References and Citations, and a Doctrinal Index.

Want to know which Fathers referenced Deut. 6:4? The *Index of Scriptural References and Citations * directs to 786 1682 in Jurgens. Want to know which Fathers taught that charity is necessary for salvation? The Doctrinal Index points to 1503 1583 1860a 1943 in Jurgens.

Guess where Catholic Answers gets their *The Fathers Know Best * quotes?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

**djrakowski **:

Did you catch this past Monday’s “Journey Home?” The guest was Peter Holmes, a former Lutheran minister from Australia. The entire program was a series of “a-ha!” moments for me, in which a lot of stuff I’ve been studying over the last ~9 months started to make sense.

No, I didn’t catch it, but I’ll definitely check the archives. I’ve certainly had my share of “a-ha” moments in the past few months.

I’m learning a lot from very high-level studies of early Christian history. I have one struggle, however, and this is it: how do I know that something is right simply because a lot of early Christians, or a few influential early Christians, believed it? Is it on the basis of these folks’ close contact with the events immediately following the death of the Lord?

I think the important thing to remember is that the early Christians are not infallible. However, when you find all these early writers all writing in agreement, it certainly gives authority to their writing. Protestants often say they want to go back to what the early church taught. Well, I have read several early church fathers write in support of transubstantiation, for example. This is a doctrine few Protestants accept, which is troubling for me, because it seems to have been taught by the early church. I must admit, the more I study the early church fathers (and I’ve only just begun), the more I see that the Catholic Church is in agreement with the early church, and Protestant churches are not. As far as the early Christian writers’ close contact with the events surrounding Christ’s death and resurrection, I think that certainly gives them credibility. Plus, some of these early writers (i.e. Ignatius and Polycarp) actually learned from the Apostles, so I am certainly inclined to see their writings as teaching the truth.

Since several of you wrote about my question about the Catholic Church “creating” sins, I’ll address all of you together. Take, for example, Church discipline. These are not Doctrines, and they can in fact be changed. One example would be the practice of eating meat on Fridays. Now, it is my understanding that for years, this was prohibited by the Church. If I am correct, this was seen as a sin. Now, this policy has been changed (if I am correct), so that it only applies during Lent. So, what formerly was a sin now is not. I guess since I don’t see how eating meat on any specific day is a sin, then it seems that the Catholic Church made it a sin, and then, years later, made it no longer a sin.

I don’t have a problem with the breaking of Doctrine being called a sin, but I do have a problem with the breaking of Discipline being called a sin. For example, there is nothing inherently immoral about clergy getting married, but the Catholic Church (in the Latin Rite) has made celibacy a required discipline, in effect making it a sin for the clergy to marry. Thus, a sin exists where it did not exist before. Anyway, that’s what I was talking about. This is a difficult issue for me, so I would greatly appreciate any explanation. Thanks!

God Bless!

 

[CARose]

IP,

I am quite impressed with your recognition of the difference between discipline and doctrine in the teachings of the Church. This is a differentiation frequently missed and confused by lifelong Catholics. One of the ways of practicing the humility desired by Christ is through our acceptance of those authorities placed over us by God. I don’t know about you, but for me, this has been a life-long struggle. Now as a >45 yr old, I am finally realizing that it is necessary and profitable to accept authority.

The Church is one such authority placed in our lives. We can either accept it, and the disciplines it hands down to it’s adherants, or we can choose to not accept it. We have free will in these things. Things such as not eating meat on Fridays (which, unknown to many Catholics is still recommended, although not required) are ways we can grow in our sanctity. They lead us into greater conformity with Christ as we take everyday tasks such as eating and move them into a higher realm.

I wish you well as you continue your journey,

CARose

 

[djrakowski]

The Iambic Pen:

No, I didn’t catch it, but I’ll definitely check the archives. I’ve certainly had my share of “a-ha” moments in the past few months.

I’ve saved it in MP3 format. Let me know if you can’t get it out of the archives.
The Iambic Pen:

I think the important thing to remember is that the early Christians are not infallible. However, when you find all these early writers all writing in agreement, it certainly gives authority to their writing.

You summed up my thoughts perfectly.
The Iambic Pen:

I don’t have a problem with the breaking of Doctrine being called a sin, but I do have a problem with the breaking of Discipline being called a sin. For example, there is nothing inherently immoral about clergy getting married, but the Catholic Church (in the Latin Rite) has made celibacy a required discipline, in effect making it a sin for the clergy to marry. Thus, a sin exists where it did not exist before. Anyway, that’s what I was talking about. This is a difficult issue for me, so I would greatly appreciate any explanation.

Umm, ditto… this is a stumbling block for me, too. I’m looking forward to what folks have to say.

Thanks,
Dan

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

I don’t have a problem with the breaking of Doctrine being called a sin, but I do have a problem with the breaking of Discipline being called a sin.

Parents set rules of discipline for their children, e.g. “be in bed by 9:00 p.m. on school night.” A child that breaks that rule is sinning because he is under the moral obligation to be obedient to his parent. There isn’t anything inherently sinful about staying up past 9:00 p.m. The child’s sin in breaking this rule of discipline is in being disobedient to the parent who has divinely established authority over him.

In the USA we drive on the right side of the road, and in England the left. Arbitrary rules of discipline determine what side of the road to drive on. Adherence to rules of discipline are necessary in any functional family or society, and life in a church community is no exception.

Christ gave his bishops authority over the flock in matters of Church discipline. If the bishops decide that Church discipline is abstinence on Friday, the Catholic sins when he disregards the authority of the shepherds, just as a child sins when he sneaks around to stay up past his bedtime.

 

[Mickey]

Fasting was the commandment that was given to our nature in the beginning to protect it with respect to tasting of food, and in this point the progenitor of our substance fell. There, however, where the first defeat was suffered, the ascetic strugglers make their beginning in the fear of God as they start to keep His laws. And the savior also, when He manifested Himself to the world in the Jordan, began at this point. For after His baptism, the Spirit led Him into the wilderness and He fasted for forty days and forty nights.

Likewise, all who set out to follow in His footsteps make the beginning of their struggle upon this foundation. For this is a weapon forged by God, and who shall escape blame if He neglects it? And if the lawgiver Himself fasts, who among those who keep the law, has no need of fasting? When the devil, the foe and the tyrant, sees a man bearing this weapon, he is straight away frightened and he recollects and considers that defeat which he suffered in the wilderness at the hands of the Savior; at once his strength is shattered and the very sight of this weapon, given us by our Commander-in-chief, burns him.

---

· St. Isaac the Syrian, *Ascetical Homilies, 37 *

 

[Mickey]

From 1 Corinthians:

“Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

 

[Matt16_18]

CARose:

… as a >45 yr old, I am finally realizing that it is necessary and profitable to accept authority.

We all chafe at human authority.

Protestantism is the result of rejecting divinely instituted authority. Sola scriptura isn’t a doctrine about the authority of scriptures, because the Catholic Church has always taught scripture is authoritative.

Sola Scriptura is a rebel’s rallying call based on Luther’s assertion that the Catholic bishops have no authority that must be recognized by Christians - that the sole authority that a man must recognize is the authority of the Bible.

It is the “sola” part of sola scripture that makes it a devil’s doctrine.

Everything that a Protestant struggles with in his conversion to Catholicism ultimately boils down to a question of authority. Did Christ really establish a church with bishops, priests, and deacons, and did he give his shepherds authority in his church?

 

[Mickey]

Matt16_18:

Protestantism is the result of rejecting divinely instituted authority.

…and we must always remember that protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[CARose]

Mickey:

…and we must always remember that protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Absolutely so. And yet true Charity requires that we acknowledge this challenge of authority and attempt to gently lead them back to the fullness of the Truth as given to us by Jesus himself.

CARose

 

[Mickey]

CARose:

Absolutely so. And yet true Charity requires that we acknowledge this challenge of authority and attempt to gently lead them back to the fullness of the Truth as given to us by Jesus himself.

CARose

Eloquently stated!

 

[CARose]

Thanks

 

[Matt16_18]

Mickey:

…and we must always remember that protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

And we must also remember that our Protestant brothers and sisters are in need of hearing the unadulterated truth. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

Vatican II, DECREE ON ECUMENISM

 

[awfulthings9]

**djrakowski **:
Since several of you wrote about my question about the Catholic Church “creating” sins, I’ll address all of you together. Take, for example, Church discipline. These are not Doctrines, and they can in fact be changed. One example would be the practice of eating meat on Fridays. Now, it is my understanding that for years, this was prohibited by the Church. If I am correct, this was seen as a sin. Now, this policy has been changed (if I am correct), so that it only applies during Lent. So, what formerly was a sin now is not. I guess since I don’t see how eating meat on any specific day is a sin, then it seems that the Catholic Church made it a sin, and then, years later, made it no longer a sin.

Hey Iambic,
Here’s my take on this issue. To look at it on the surface, it seems so trivial that someone is breaking a simple, changeable rule and becoming guilty of mortal sin. The sin, however, is not in the actual consumption of meat, which is not an evil act in and of itself. The sin is that of Pride in that we are saying, “God, I know you put the church in charge of making rules to guide me spiritually, but I’m going to do it my way.” Consider Adam and Eve. Nothing inherently wrong with eating a piece of fruit. God, however, made this discipline (not doctrine), and by eating it anyway, they were making their own rules, trying to be like God in that they could decide right and wrong for themselves. Sure, the rule on lent and Fridays has changed. Now that it has been relaxed, I am not putting myself above the church to eat meat as I would be if I skipped mass. When it was a discipline, I would have. Someone used the analogy of a parent disciplining child. There is nothing inherently wrong with driving a car, but if the child did it despite being grounded, he would be saying to the parent, “I don’t care about your rules, even though it’s your house. I’ll do it my way.” If a child broke a babysitter’s rules (and picture the church as God’s babysitter), when she had, after all, been given the authority to set limits and rules in their absense, he would be just as guilty of defying the parent as if they (God, in this case) had made the rule themselves, no matter how temporary it was. When we tell God (or the one he appointed as the babysitter) that we know better, we are recreating the original sin that had us all booted from a potential existense in paradise. Does that make sense? I know I rambled.

 

[awfulthings9]

One more note, and one I like to point out to my Bible-Christian friends, is that, even in Scripture, we see “disciplines” which are subject to change, but non-negotiable at the time, such as wearing head-dresses for women in church (so few protestant and Catholic groups do this) or forbidding circumsission (how many Bible-Christian churches forbid parents from this discipline, even though Hebrews spells it ous. All of these, like Catholic traditions, were designed for a certain people, time, and place. They were binding on that group (as were disciplines like fasting), but not binding eternally. Like fasting and such, it would have been a matter of pride to disobey an inspired author or church leader, yet it was not an example of the early church “making up sins”. Take care.

 

[CARose]

awfulthings9:

…even in Scripture, we see “disciplines” which are subject to change, but non-negotiable at the time, such as …forbidding circumcision …

I don’t think either scripture or the church forbids circumcision, I thought it merely doesn’t require it. Besides, I don’t see how we would have something that Jesus did be forbidden. (See the CCC 527)

CARose