Some Stumbling Blocks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zeldarocks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zeldarocks

Guest
In my journey into the Church, I have come upon many stumbling blocks which have proved to be a source of doubt and uncertainty as to the veracity of the Catholic Church. Among these are: the allegations of Pagan worship having infiltrated the Early Church, causing a remnant to rise up and preserve the faith amidst a Constantinian Christianity; conversely, the notion that some of the Early Fathers may have been “Protestant” as it were, in the event a Constantinian Shift may have been fallacious; and the issue of the apparent contradictions among the Early Fathers on various doctrines espoused by the Catholic Church.

If I can disprove the theory of the Constantinian Shift, and if I can prove that all of the Fathers were Catholic, then I can come into the Church with a clean conscience; otherwise, I will have to take it on “faith” and continue to be bothered by it in the back of my mind. So, apologists, have at it…
 
As to the early church father’s having various opinions, I’m not sure why this would surprise you or cause you to doubt. Since the ‘protestant reformation’ how many disagreements have been had about what one scripture or another, or one ‘theology’ or another means or is correct? Why would it be any different in the early church? That is why they had councils come together to determine which idea was correct by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It should actually bring you comfort that they were debating and considering.

As to your other indication that the early church father’s were ‘protestant’, for every 1 quote being used to say that, there are 50 that show they were very much catholic. Nate13 did a pretty good job of outlaying some of the problems with the quotes you used in your other thread, I have come to the conclusion that. I would suggest doing a thorough personal study of the Early Church fathers and their teachings.

I would suggest a good place to start would be “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” by John Henry Newman. If you can’t find it in hardcopy, you can read it online at the link provided previously.
 
Even the elders in Acts 15 had disagreement, so looking for an absolute 100% agreement across the board on doctrine that can develop is not a proper way to go. Rather, one must look for a corporate voice. One thing the Fathers had in common almost universally is the recognition of Church authority, bishops, etc… Right there makes the early Church alien to Protestantism. Also, you might want to keyword search the catholic.com homepage for Constantine. I know he is mentioned in a number of apologetic articles.
 
As you approach the threshold of the Church established by Jesus Christ upon the rock, evil forces will try to trip you up. These forces will impede your progress and at the same time sow lingering doubts. It is up to you with the help of grace to act with courage and boldly advance.
 
Constantine called for the “Catholic Church of the Christians” to be allowed to practise without persecution, and to have any stolen property restored to it. I am not aware that he made Christianity the official religion of the empire (one story that I’ve frequently heard), and the Church rejected the infiltration of paganism that one of Constantine’s three reigning sons tried to force on it during Athanasius of Alexandria’s time; if I remember correctly (I don’t always), the Pope went into exile over this. (I know that at this time there were exiles going on over the Arian heresy and its overwhelming popularity among bigshots in both the church and the state; the Pope was exiled over either Arianism or paganism, I know that. Athanasius’s exiles centered mainly around Arianism. ;))

Some interesting resources might be: “Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church”. I haven’t gotten very far into it, but it seems like its going to be a very readable history.
A short history on Athanasius and some of the political messes of his time can be found in books about the saints such as “Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints”, or John Delaney’s “Dictionary of Saints”.
 
Zeldarocks said:
In my journey into the Church, I have come upon many stumbling blocks which have proved to be a source of doubt and uncertainty as to the veracity of the Catholic Church. Among these are: the allegations of Pagan worship having infiltrated the Early Church, causing a remnant to rise up and preserve the faith amidst a Constantinian Christianity; conversely, the notion that some of the Early Fathers may have been “Protestant” as it were, in the event a Constantinian Shift may have been fallacious; and the issue of the apparent contradictions among the Early Fathers on various doctrines espoused by the Catholic Church.

If I can disprove the theory of the Constantinian Shift, and if I can prove that all of the Fathers were Catholic, then I can come into the Church with a clean conscience; otherwise, I will have to take it on “faith” and continue to be bothered by it in the back of my mind. So, apologists, have at it…
Click to expand...
Hi Zeldarocks !

Thanks for asking.
  • The real change in Constantine’s times for the Church was that she passed from being persecuted ( the recent persecution under Diocletian having been the most violent of all ) to being free and even state-funded. It was not to become the established religion until Teodosius, some sixty years later. That momentous change did mean a challenge about the quality of Christians, both leaders and flock.
That said, what sort of pagan infiltration do the sources of this doubt of yours charge the Church with ? If we read the Nicene Creed word by word, where did exactly paganism infiltrate in this summa of the Christian doctrine promulgated in 325, precisely under Constantine ?
Or are they speaking about pagan terminology ? Well “pontifex” for one was indeed a latin word for high priest. Is that a mark of infiltration ? Let’s see. Do they necessarily elaborate new terminologies when a people receive a new religion ? Well, “deus” was the word for a god in roman politheism and was adopted by Christians for the One God well before Constantine. Same for “theos” in greek-speaking areas, beginning with the New Testament. Does that amount to pagan infiltration into Scriptures ?
  • Now about the remnant. I guess those christian brothers who propose this specific model of a faithful remnant share with me the persuasion that this is a precise historical statement. As such, to be supported by historical evidence. Did any of them show you the historical sources describing the existence and nature of this faithful church ? Who they were, where they flourished, what their beliefs were…
  • The Fathers were ancient witnesses and contributors to the great collective reflection on Revelation ( ie Christian Theology ), which would go on in the Middle Ages and in modern centuries, and is going on today. Each of them with his own emphasis and inclination, as any thinker.
    Can we seriously doubt that the thrust of the spiritual edifice they were building was Catholic ? Remember that they are called Fathers of the Church, just because before anything else they were Children of the Church. Tertullian is the only great ancient catholic writer who left the Church ( for Montanism ), after having expounded orthodox views, while some of the profound ideas by Origen were seen as of doubtful orthodoxy. Did you note that the other Fathers are normally quoted by the Church with a “Saint” preceding their name ? That is a clear mark that their thoughts are considered as belonging to Catholic orthodoxy.
“But - some non catholic brothers could whisper - what if the Catholic Church were manifestly wrong in assessing the orthodoxy of the Fathers, as it is wrong on other grave matters ?”
Well, consider please a classic example. Some people have fun in counting how many Fathers would identify the rock in Matthew 16 as Peter, how many as Christ Himself , and how many as Peter’s faith. Imagining that a part of the Fathers were proto-protestants for entartaining the second or third option is extremely misleading. There was no conflict among them stemming from different supposed points of view on this. Simply no Father would attack the petrine primacy, the above options being far from being perceived as mutually exclusive, as modern faith communities would want to teach us. There existed no camp of Fathers linked to a specific option. Not only you can see the harmony of Christian thought about these co-existing interpretations, you can just see them entartained by the very same author. Were the ancient Fathers crazy ? Or is the mutual exclusion, the “aut aut” about the mentioned options a much later invention ? All of the three interpretations are indeed perfectly consistent with Petrine primacy of course, and all are kept by the Church, in harmony with those ancient Fathers of hers, who were her children.

I hope this can help.

In Christ
P7
 
Zeldarocks said:
In my journey into the Church, I have come upon many stumbling blocks which have proved to be a source of doubt and uncertainty as to the veracity of the Catholic Church. Among these are: the allegations of Pagan worship having infiltrated the Early Church, causing a remnant to rise up and preserve the faith amidst a Constantinian Christianity; conversely, the notion that some of the Early Fathers may have been “Protestant” as it were, in the event a Constantinian Shift may have been fallacious; and the issue of the apparent contradictions among the Early Fathers on various doctrines espoused by the Catholic Church.

If I can disprove the theory of the Constantinian Shift, and if I can prove that all of the Fathers were Catholic, then I can come into the Church with a clean conscience; otherwise, I will have to take it on “faith” and continue to be bothered by it in the back of my mind. So, apologists, have at it…
Click to expand...
First, Jesus told his followers to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. Well, if “real” Christianity went into hiding, where is the evidence that it ever fulfilled the Great Commission? Instead, history records that the Catholic Church converted the world in the face of great opposition.

As the to the “inflitration”, the situation is exactly the opposite. WE infiltrated them. Consider the fate of the pagan religions.

Catholics overran pagan cities, towns and lands, bought and occupied pagan buildings and temples, altered pagan art, music and literature, absorbed and replaced pagan harvest festivals and religious feasts, and, above all, won over and converted the pagan **people themselves. In doing so, Catholics brought all things **under the dominion of the one true God, Jesus Christ.

Isn’t that what He wanted us to do (cf. Mt 28:19)?
 
Zeldarocks
In my journey into the Church, I have come upon many stumbling blocks which have proved to be a source of doubt and uncertainty as to the veracity of the Catholic Church….Pagan worship having infiltrated the Early Church…apparent contradictions among the Early Fathers on various doctrines espoused by the Catholic Church.
If I can disprove the theory of the Constantinian Shift, and if I can prove that all of the Fathers were Catholic, then I can come into the Church with a clean conscience
Click to expand...
As a Protestant you would surely believe that Christ is God, and in the Bible.

So the real questions are: did Christ establish His Church, and did He give Her infallibility in teaching His truths (doctrines and dogmas)?
The answers are very clear:
Christ made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus no teaching on faith or morals can possibly be in error when defined by the Magisterium – no “pagan” worship can be initiated or fostered, and while not infallible per se, the fidelity of the Early Fathers is affirmed by, for instance, Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Soloviev in Russia and the Universal Church. Asking for reunion with Rome, “he wrote, on page 34: ‘As a member of the Orthodox Church, I recognise as supreme judge in matters of religion him who has been recognised as such by St Irenaeus, St Dionysius the Great, St Athanasius the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Cyril, St Flavian, the Blessed Ignatius, etc. – namely, the Apostle Peter who lives on in his successors.’ ” Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble, MSC, STD., Chevalier Books 1973, #306].
 
A great book you can get right here at Catholic Answers: The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin.

It breaks down the Church Fathers into readable passages based upon specific beliefs. When you see quote after quote after quote showing one Father after another espousing a belief like the Eucharist, it seals the deal on the beliefs of the early Church.

I highly recommend it. Great resource and allows you to begin the process of researching and finding the answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top