Protestants and the ECFs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
I don’t really know how to ask the question, but I’ll just put it bluntly. Why do Protestants (at least the ones I’ve met on here) seem to not care what the Early Church Fathers have to say? The fathers were unanimous in their views of many Catholic teachings. And apparently, many Protestants don’t care and seem to acknowledge this fact.

Of course I understand sola scriptura. But it doesn’t make good sense to ignore the testimony of the ones who put the Bible together.

This post is directed to Protestants and Catholics and everyone else. 👍
 
I don’t really know how to ask the question, but I’ll just put it bluntly. Why do Protestants (at least the ones I’ve met on here) seem to not care what the Early Church Fathers have to say? The fathers were unanimous in their views of many Catholic teachings. And apparently, many Protestants don’t care and seem to acknowledge this fact.

Of course I understand sola scriptura. But it doesn’t make good sense to ignore the testimony of the ones who put the Bible together.

This post is directed to Protestants and Catholics and everyone else. 👍
Sorry, can’t help, I’ve never encountered Protestants who do not care about ECFs.
 
I’ve experience the same thing. You started to expand the conversation beyond scripture to the Early Fathers and they just shut down. I had one, a relative, see me reading Jurgens, Volume 1 and he told me, “why not just stick with the Bible…”

I’d be interested in resolutions to this problem as well…
 
I knew a protestant who thought St. Ignatius was deceived when he started talking about the Real Presence in 110AD.

Sola Scriptura is just too ingrained into their belief system.
 
Many Protestant schools teach on the ECF. Problem is that they do not all agree with each other. Two that I remember believed that the eucharist was just a symbol. None in their writing used the phrase "real presence, None of their writing are God inspired so all of it is subject to error.
I am not saying that their writings are not of value but they are not of more value than the writings of other great Christian writers that have written throught the years
 
Many Protestant schools teach on the ECF. Problem is that they do not all agree with each other. Two that I remember believed that the eucharist was just a symbol. None in their writing used the phrase "real presence, None of their writing are God inspired so all of it is subject to error.
I am not saying that their writings are not of value but they are not of more value than the writings of other great Christian writers that have written throught the years
Do you happen to have the sources to the ECFs that believed the eucharist was just a symbol. I’m sorry to say I’m more inclined to assume it is a misinterpretation unless I can read it if it goes against the magisterium of the Church and the Sacred Scriptures.
 
…i would say that most likely, the protestants that do actually read the ECF’s are the one’s who either deny or convert… they soon discover, that the ECF’s are very Catholic… in fact, it’s my belief and experience that the protestanst that start to read the ECF’s are looking… IMHO:rolleyes:
 
A lot of it has to do with a sense of Sacred History.
Suppose I was researching the Civil War. On one table I have letters and memoirs from soldiers and those who actually experienced the war. On the other table I have revisionist historians who tell me the Civil War was fought with airplanes and ICBMs. Who am I going to believe?
When it comes to the Early Church Fathers, they sat at the feet of the apostles. They would know, not some revisionist historian 2000 years later.
 
…i would say that most likely, the protestants that do actually read the ECF’s are the one’s who either deny or convert… they soon discover, that the ECF’s are very Catholic… in fact, it’s my belief and experience that the protestanst that start to read the ECF’s are looking… IMHO:rolleyes:
I don’t know any Protestants who would deny the ECFs are “Catholic.”
 
I don’t know any Protestants who would deny the ECFs are “Catholic.”
If you stick around various forums long enough, you can find many of them deny the ECFs to be Catholic. Take Jason Engwer for instance who I conversed with on another forum. He denied that Irenaeus and Polycarp were Catholic. He also has debated our very own apologist PhilVaz (see transcript)
 
If you stick around various forums long enough, you can find many of them deny the ECFs to be Catholic. Take Jason Engwer for instance who I conversed with on another forum. He denied that Irenaeus and Polycarp were Catholic. He also has debated our very own apologist PhilVaz (see transcript)
Well, I don’t know him, so I still don’t know any…but even so, I glanced at the thread you linked to and I thought the person you are referring to was debating whether ECFs were (specifically) “Roman” Catholic.
 
Well, I don’t know him, so I still don’t know any…but even so, I glanced at the thread you linked to and I thought the person you are referring to was debating whether ECFs were (specifically) “Roman” Catholic.
What did you mean when you said you don’t know any Protestant who denies that ECFs were “Catholic”?
 
Do you happen to have the sources to the ECFs that believed the eucharist was just a symbol. I’m sorry to say I’m more inclined to assume it is a misinterpretation unless I can read it if it goes against the magisterium of the Church and the Sacred Scriptures.
I have the writings of all the ECF’s (rather copies thereof) and give me time and I will tell exactly where to look
 
I don’t really know how to ask the question, but I’ll just put it bluntly. Why do Protestants (at least the ones I’ve met on here) seem to not care what the Early Church Fathers have to say? The fathers were unanimous in their views of many Catholic teachings. And apparently, many Protestants don’t care and seem to acknowledge this fact.

Of course I understand sola scriptura. But it doesn’t make good sense to ignore the testimony of the ones who put the Bible together.

This post is directed to Protestants and Catholics and everyone else. 👍
Robert Sungenis On the Early Church and Sacred Tradition

"Many Protestants claim that the Church of the first three centuries was a “pure” church, and only after the legalization of the Christian faith by the Roman emperor Constantine (in A.D. 312) did the church become “Catholic” and corrupt. But upon studying this issue I found that the doctrine of post-Constantine Catholicism are the same doctrines, some in more primitive form, that were held by Christians for the preceding three centuries.

"My study of the writings of the Church Fathers revealed that the early Church believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, confession of sins to a priest, baptismal regeneration, salvation by faith and good works done through grace, that one could reject God’s grace and forfeit salvation, that the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church, that Mary is the Mother of God and was perpetually a virgin, that intercessory prayer can be made to the saints in heaven, that purgatory is a state of temporary purification which some Christians undergo before entering heaven. Except for the perpetual virginity and divine motherhood of Mary, all of these doctrines were repudiated by the Protestant Reformers. If the Catholic Church is in error to hold these beliefs, then it was in error long before Constantine legalized Christianity. This would mean that the Church apostatized before the end of the first century, when the apostles were still alive! An absurd theory which even the most anti-Catholic of Protestants can’t quite bring themselves to accept.

"What I discovered by reading the Church Fathers was that present day Catholic interpretations of Scripture were held by the earliest Christians. They were passed down by Sacred Tradition and preserved and disseminated just as carefully as the Scripture was preserved and copied. Verses I had read hundreds of times concerning “tradition” now took on a whole new meaning. I finally understood the value and necessity of Sacred Tradition. Tradition did not contradict the Bible, rather, it supported it and made it clearer.

“The most important of these verses was 2 Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul specified that oral tradition was to be preserved and obeyed the same as the written tradition. Because of my inherited Protestant aversion to “tradition”, I had never really appreciated the value of good and wholesome traditions, especially those Sacred Traditions that were given by God and are preserved by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. I also learned that in places where Scripture was ambiguous (e.g. infant baptism), Sacred Tradition helped us to understand the intent of the Apostles” (Sungenis, Robert, Surprised by Truth, pp. 130-131).

Robert Sungenis attended Westminster Theological Seminary, was a Presbyterian minister, and was a member of several Protestant denominations before converting to the Catholic Church.
 
Robert Sungenis On the Early Church and Sacred Tradition

"Many Protestants claim that the Church of the first three centuries was a “pure” church, and only after the legalization of the Christian faith by the Roman emperor Constantine (in A.D. 312) did the church become “Catholic” and corrupt. But upon studying this issue I found that the doctrine of post-Constantine Catholicism are the same doctrines, some in more primitive form, that were held by Christians for the preceding three centuries.

"My study of the writings of the Church Fathers revealed that the early Church believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, confession of sins to a priest, baptismal regeneration, salvation by faith and good works done through grace, that one could reject God’s grace and forfeit salvation, that the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church, that Mary is the Mother of God and was perpetually a virgin, that intercessory prayer can be made to the saints in heaven, that purgatory is a state of temporary purification which some Christians undergo before entering heaven. Except for the perpetual virginity and divine motherhood of Mary, all of these doctrines were repudiated by the Protestant Reformers. If the Catholic Church is in error to hold these beliefs, then it was in error long before Constantine legalized Christianity. This would mean that the Church apostatized before the end of the first century, when the apostles were still alive! An absurd theory which even the most anti-Catholic of Protestants can’t quite bring themselves to accept.

"What I discovered by reading the Church Fathers was that present day Catholic interpretations of Scripture were held by the earliest Christians. They were passed down by Sacred Tradition and preserved and disseminated just as carefully as the Scripture was preserved and copied. Verses I had read hundreds of times concerning “tradition” now took on a whole new meaning. I finally understood the value and necessity of Sacred Tradition. Tradition did not contradict the Bible, rather, it supported it and made it clearer.

“The most important of these verses was 2 Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul specified that oral tradition was to be preserved and obeyed the same as the written tradition. Because of my inherited Protestant aversion to “tradition”, I had never really appreciated the value of good and wholesome traditions, especially those Sacred Traditions that were given by God and are preserved by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. I also learned that in places where Scripture was ambiguous (e.g. infant baptism), Sacred Tradition helped us to understand the intent of the Apostles” (Sungenis, Robert, Surprised by Truth, pp. 130-131).

Robert Sungenis attended Westminster Theological Seminary, was a Presbyterian minister, and was a member of several Protestant denominations before converting to the Catholic Church.
So someone else studying the ECF’s might come to an entirely different conclusion. Many have.
 
I don’t really know how to ask the question, but I’ll just put it bluntly. Why do Protestants (at least the ones I’ve met on here) seem to not care what the Early Church Fathers have to say? The fathers were unanimous in their views of many Catholic teachings. And apparently, many Protestants don’t care and seem to acknowledge this fact.
ECF’s are Catholic and if I were Protestant I would also poo-poo them.

A few Protestants make use of ECF’s in there apologetic damnation of the Catholic Church.

To these folks I say that I am glad God preserved the writings of the ECF in spite of the Catholic Church so Protestants could beat us up with them.🙂
 
So someone else studying the ECF’s might come to an entirely different conclusion. Many have.
So, someone studying it now comes to a different conclusion than the debaters of the day, therefore it is valid? Based on what authority?

Protestants cannot get past the other fact regarding the ECF. Whenever a question or dispute arose, Rome had the final decision. Roma locuta est. Causa finita est - Rome has spoken. The cause is finished. It’s not so much the defense of the practice they should be looking for. It’s the fact that the practice was used, period.

It was the successor to Peter who held the “Keys to the Kingdom”. Those keys didn’t disappear with the death of Peter. It is not the location of Rome that is supreme. The Pope has had to leave the Vatican on occasion over the centuries to minister from elsewhere due to different threats. That’s not much of a worry nowadays.

Protestants should asked themselves why disputes were referred to Rome, and why Rome’s decision was accepted afterward. Those who did not accept it were those who believed Rome reached the wrong decision, but they were perfectly fine with deferring to Rome when they thought something would be decided in their favor. How ironic. This is happening today with liberals rejecting Humane Vitae, and conservatives rejecting Vatican II. As you can see, you do even need to leave the Church to reject Rome, but why would you want to?
 
Protestants cannot get past the other fact regarding the ECF. Whenever a question or dispute arose, Rome had the final decision. Roma locuta est. Causa finita est - Rome has spoken. The cause is finished. It’s not so much the defense of the practice they should be looking for. It’s the fact that the practice was used, period.
This is not exactly what Augustine said. It is a paraphrase that allegedly is the meaning was what was actually said. The reference is to Sermon 131, which dealt with the Pelagian heresy. The actual quote is:
For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too!
ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PNI6-13.TXT

Does this mean that Augustine thought that the Pope had the final say in matters? It does not appear so. The opinion of Rome was sought as Pelagius had a large following there so the assent of its bishop was important. It was also the only Apostolic see in the west.

However, Augustine did not view Rome as the only Apostolic See. He writes:
You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion, claiming the name of Christians, and as withering branches boasting of the mere appearance of being derived from the true vine: all this has been foreseen, predicted, and described in Scripture.
Letter 232
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.CCXXXII.html

In Augustine’s view an ecumenical council had final authority and could overrule the Bishop of Rome. In his letter 43 he indicates again that Rome is an Apostolic see, not the only one.
Carthage was also near to the countries beyond the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard even a number of enemies conspiring against him, because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel, and was prepared to defend himself before these Churches if his adversaries attempted to cause an alienation of them from him.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.XLIII.html

He goes on in the same letter to say:
“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.”
As Rome’s decision could be overturned by a council, Augustine did not feel that the Pope had the final decision in matters.
 
Sometimes atheists study the evidence for the Resurrection and conclude it didn’t happen. They must be right.
Or at the very least, their “truth” must be just a valid as our truth. Let’s join hands…

Kuuuuumbaya, my Lord, kuuuuumbaya…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top