The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[Anna_Scott]

teachccd…Here is a rebuttal to you accusations:

They never knew the term Trinity.
-But they believed that God is one in three, none-the-less.

They never heard the term “Blble”.
-But they understood what the scriptures were

They never knew the New Testament. (As it was compiled in the 27 books)
-But Peter still refers to Paul’s letters as scripture, and it is clear that John knew that the book of Revelation was a revelation to the faithful. Also the writers of the Gospels knew what they were doing and writing.

They never knew the term incarnation.
-But they still believed that it happened…even if they didn’t refer to it by that term.

They never knew the term “personal Lord and Savior”
-But they still accepted him as their Lord and Savior.

They never knew the “sinner’s prayer”.
-But they still accepted Christ by an inner conversion of the heart.

They never knew all of the contemporary worship songs that make up about 70% of a Protestant service.
-But they still had hymns and spiritual songs.

They never used the word pastor except for our Lord and the authority He gave to Peter to feed His sheep.
-Acts 20:28

They never heard or knew of “sola Scriptura”.
-But Jesus still condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time which contradicted scripture.

They never heard that they were saved by faith alone. James is pretty clear on this.
-You are misinterpreting James…and Paul is pretty clear that salvation is by faith alone. Example: The thief on the cross…when did he have time to do good works?

john1968,

I think you missed the point of teachccd’s post. Many Protestant teachings and practices cannot be found directly in Scripture, which means they come from a “tradition” of interpreting Scripture in a certain way.

What I would like you to do, primarily for your own benefit, is take each of the statements in your post above, and quote Scripture to prove your assertions and quote Scripture to disprove those of teachccd’. At some point, you’re got to use/demonstrate Sola Scriptura, if you are going to claim Sola Scriptura.

Anna

 

[cfrancis]

cfrancis…

I haven’t even had time to read half these postings. Also…I don’t remember anyone answering my questions. I am a human being. I only have so much time to devote to this website. I am a lowly Protestant in a see of Catholics here. I post one thing and you all post tons in response. I only have so much time. Sorry.

No need to apologize, John. You’re doing the best you can, yes, as you say, in a sea of Catholics!
Thing is, (to use an analogy), your posts read as if you are saying, “pi is about 3 or 4” and we’ve been replying, “no, pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974.”

BTW: is the 1968 in your name your birth year? If so, we’re the same age.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I realized that by saying that all tradition was bad I was doing it an injustice. I was afraid that if I admitted that any tradition was good that would give the Catholics on this thread the chance to corner me in and say that if I agree to any tradition, then I have to agree to the whole gambit of Roman Catholic tradition.

To be honest I have never heard this argument; because you accept some tradition you must accept all of it. The argument I usually make is that because you believe in some traditions, you can’t outright dismiss Catholic traditions because they are traditions.

What I have to realize, as well as my Catholic and other friends, is that tradition in and of itself is not bad. It is when tradition which contradicts scripture is put on an even standing with scripture, that’s when it becomes bad.

We have tried to tell you this. Christ condemned traditions which made void the word of God.

We have to look at the example of our Lord. He condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time because those traditions were being taught as if they were the word of God, when they were only the traditions of men.

I do not believe this is correct. Christ condemned them because they made void the word of God. Paul even tells us to hang on to the traditions which he had handed on either by word of mouth or written letter.

There used to be traditions in the RCC which have now been done away with, yet not so long ago they were taught to the faithful as if they were the Gospel truth.

No this is not correct. John you need to sit down and study Catholic teaching. In this case study the difference between sacred Tradition and disciplines of the Church.

My Catholic parents remember how in pre-War Poland they were taught that you cannot go to communion unless you have confession first.

Catholics are not to take communion unless they are in a state of Grace. This is still a teaching of the Church.

They were also taught that unbaptized babies go to limbo.

Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church.

John reading your response you seem to want the Church to have to live by your rules on what is and is not a Tradition. It simply doesn’t work this way. Words do not mean whatever you want them to mean. They have real and significant meaning within Catholicism. You cannot just go and define a term however you want it to be defined and then say, “see”. If you wish to come to a better understanding of what is and is not considered Sacred Tradition within Catholicism, study Catholicism.

The RCC tries to say the two are equal, but in reality the RCC always puts tradition on a higher pedestal. Tradition always trumps scripture in the RCC.

Negative. It is not so just because you want it to be so. Where should we go to understand the* Catholic *teaching on the relationship on Scripture and Sacred Tradition? You should go to a Catholic source:

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#II

One is not put above the other like you suggest.

God bless you John

 

[Anna_Scott]

cfrancis…

I haven’t even had time to read half these postings. Also…I don’t remember anyone answering my questions. I am a human being. I only have so much time to devote to this website. I am a lowly Protestant in a see of Catholics here. I post one thing and you all post tons in response. I only have so much time. Sorry.

Hang in there, John 1968.

Anna

 

[john1968]

THE CADAVER SYNOD…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod (from Wikipedia)

I recently taught about this in two classes. I first learned about this event when I was a teenager and read about it in the library from a Catholic book on the biographies of the Popes. Back then I was Catholic and I was shocked to no end…now as a Protestant I can understand it better.

This has to be the most ridiculous and primary example of Papal corruption during the Middle Ages. It puts forth the words of Chris to the believing mind: You shall know them by their fruits.

But don’t take my word for it. Read about it from Wikipedia…and if you don’t trust Wikipedia, then try a Catholic source. It is both funny and sad at the same time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod (from Wikipedia)

Oh and be sure to read the whole article to get the full spectrum of the insane behavior of these men…and how utterly un-Christian it is. Any recent convert to Catholicism should fully learn about this and other behavior that was enacted by the Church hierarchy during the Middle Ages. It will shock you to the core…then read about Rodrigo Borgia, aka: Pope Alexander VI… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_VI (from Wikipedia)

 

[LionHeart777]

John you had mentioned that you were Catholic before reading the ante-Nicene Fathers.

They had the opposite effect on me. I was more of a self proclaimed Baptityrrean until I discovered that they did not believe in the traditions (of men) which I had come to embrace.

May God bless you!

 

[Anna_Scott]

THE CADAVER SYNOD…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod (from Wikipedia)

I recently taught about this in two classes. I first learned about this event when I was a teenager and read about it in the library from a Catholic book on the biographies of the Popes. Back then I was Catholic and I was shocked to no end…now as a Protestant I can understand it better.

This has to be the most ridiculous and primary example of Papal corruption during the Middle Ages. It puts forth the words of Chris to the believing mind: You shall know them by their fruits.

But don’t take my word for it. Read about it from Wikipedia…and if you don’t trust Wikipedia, then try a Catholic source. It is both funny and sad at the same time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod (from Wikipedia)

Oh and be sure to read the whole article to get the full spectrum of the insane behavior of these men…and how utterly un-Christian it is. Any recent convert to Catholicism should fully learn about this and other behavior that was enacted by the Church hierarchy during the Middle Ages. It will shock you to the core…then read about Rodrigo Borgia, aka: Pope Alexander VI… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_VI (from Wikipedia)

John1968,
You complain about not having enough time to answer our responses to your posts; but you seem to have plenty of time and energy to complain about Catholic history.

Are you ever going to deal with the issues of this thread?

Anna

 

[john1968]

LionHeart777…

What is a Baptityrrean?

I left the RCC when I read the Ante-Nicene fathers…not just the ECF…You see the ECF encompass a larger time span of time than the Ante-Nicene fathers. The Ante-Nicene fathers deal only with the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Only till the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicea. After that I really didn’t care too much. I needed to know what the original people thought about the faith. After a bunch of centuries I kind of lose interest in some of the debates.

I had come from a background where I believed that the dogma of the Church had never changed. I believed that that papacy, bishop’s authority, prayers to angels and saints, Marian devotion, 7 sacraments, auricular confession to a priests who give absolution, etc., etc., had all existed in the early centuries. But then I saw holes in all that. I didn’t see popes, I didn’t see prayers to angels and saints, I didn’t see 7 sacraments. I saw an evolution of theology that came over time. I even read in a Catholic book on dogma that for a while in the East non-ordained monks heard confessions and prayed for the sinners forgiveness. I read enough in the Ante-Nicene Fathers that there were just too many holes in the doctrine that the RCC never changed in doctrines and that there is no continuous revelation. It just didn’t make sense.

If you want to look at the history of the faith from a broader perspective, and not concentrate on primarily the first 3 centuries…then sure…you’ll see bishops, prayers to angels and saints, Marian devotion, and a whole bunch of other stuff. But by doing that you removed yourself from the earliest sources and the faith of the earliest Christians. The more time you encompass in your study the more you’ll be able to see these things which evolved become accepted. But if you only go to the 6th or 7th century, the argument is still stronger for Greek Orthodoxy than for the RCC. It depends on where in history you want to stop. Where in history you think is the point that you see the most real form of Christianity. The problem I had is that I had been taught and learned for years that the theology of the Church remained a constant…and that it did not evolve. I was taught that revelation is not continuous…but I realized by reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that that is a lie to history. Theology/doctrine did evolve. So what was believed in the first century is not the same as what is believed today.

My baby is making noises…sorry…

Sorry about the attack on Church history…I am a historian…I couldn’t resist. It’s just so funny. And I recently taught about the Cadaver Synod. It was fresh on my mind.

They’re some of the funniest and most ridiculous events in Church history. I mean the history of the Cadaver Synod should be made into a movie…it’s so ridiculous. And the life of Rodrigo Borgia. (Pope Alexander VI)…It’s truly disturbing that men like this ran the church. The RCC states that the Holy Spirit chooses the pope. So why did Rodrigo Borgia have to bribe the majority of the Cardinals? You see? It’s things like this that I just can’t believe. If the Holy Spirit chooses these men…then why all the corruption?

What do we as students of history learn from events? We learn that there was something wrong with these people and that their lives did not reflect Christianity. Christians are to love one another…if you read the lives of these people you realize that love was the last thing on their minds.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Unity of Trinity…

Oh…how cool…you used to be a Charismatic Protestant…were you anti-Trinitarian?
No, I was fullt Trinian, but just anti-Catholic

BTW…I used to be Roman Catholic…Till I read the Ante-Nicene fathers.
Interesting, it is by the same method that brought me back to the Catholic Church, can you please show me which statement from which Father convinced you so?

Like I said…traditions are not bad unless they contradict scripture…or if they add things to the word of God that’s not revealed in God’s revelation…
Good, at least we have something in common.

1. Immaculate Conception…please tell me when did Jesus or any of the Apostles ever preach this?
   According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel came and saluted Mary: “Hail, Full of Grace”, “full of grace” in Greek is Kecharitomene, perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace."Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
   (cf. Catholic.com)
2. Indulgences…No such thing till 1,000 years after the time of Jesus…so how did the Apostles know of it?
   I am not much literated in Scripture, I sure hope any of my fellow Catholic here could chime in at anytime to answer your question.
3. Papal Infallibility…obviously Paul didn’t agree with this one since he publicly accused Peter to his face…and it’s funny…not pope in history ever made an ex-cathedra statement till the later 19th century. If it’s a doctrine that goes back to the Apostles, why did the Bishops of Rome wait so long?
   Ex-Cathedra is just a recognition, a term. Like you said just because people did not know the term Trinity does not mean they do not acknowledge the concept of a Trinian God. Likewise, prior before that, the concept of Papacy has already been defined,
   _Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.])..
   In regard of Paul, I think you should read again. Paul did not chastise Peter for his teachings, he chastised Peter for hypocripsy. Thus this passage has no bearing whatsoever. Being pope does not mean being perfect, I wonder where did you get this from.
4. Clerical Celebacy…didn’t even start being a followed regularly by any group till the late 4th century…
   Maybe it’s because clerical celibacy is not a canon law, but a vow. Eastern rite priests do not have to be celibate, but they sure favor the celibates for bishops. Also you should read the passage from Gospel of Matthew when Jesus spoke of celibacy. Some were eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom, and that is exactly what the priests are doing.
5. Monasticism…started in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.
   Actually, this already started out at late as 2nd century with the desert Fathers. Jesus Himself went to the desert and solitary places many times to pray and worship the Father.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

*“Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]
. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing Mother, with the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father—the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).
*

1. The first time a Bishop of Rome demanded obedience of any kind was Stephen in 250 A.D., over 200 after Jesus time. And in response to this Cyprian, Bishop of Rome, condemned the nerve of this man to demand obedience that even the Apostle Peter himself never asked for.
   "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
   Pope Clement I

ETC…

 

[cfrancis]

John, I am enjoying this thread and the discourse herein, but after reading your posts, I find it hard to believe that you a) teach history and b) have read the Anti-Nicene fathers in a form other than in Boettner or other such sources.

 

[Anna_Scott]

John, I am enjoying this thread and the discourse herein, but after reading your posts, I find it hard to believe that you a) teach history and b) have read the Anti-Nicene fathers in a form other than in Boettner or other such sources.

cfrancis,

I’ve pretty much given up on expecting John1968 to answer any of my posts. He has hijacked this thread and turned it into an anti-Catholic platform, instead of discussing the issue defined in the OP.

I am just learning about the Early Church Fathers and came across an article on another website which respond to a protestant’s view of the Early Church Fathers and how in his opinion, they were proponents of sola scriptura, NOT tradition, as is really the case. I found this fascinating.

Has anyone ever encountered, or been in discussions with, people who are convinced that the Early Fathers were, in fact, pro sola scriptura and not Catholic?

Anna

 

[SyCarl]

A problem that arises is reading the present meaning of Tradition anachronistically into the early church fathers. I will use Irenaeus as an example.
Irenaeus certainly refers to tradition and faith received from the Apostles. He also tells us what this tradition is.

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth,** has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith**: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.** For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.** For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

(Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 10, Paragraphs 1-2)

This is what Irenaeus gives as the tradition received by the Church from the Apostles. It contains nothing that is not clearly found in Scripture. This is not unexpected because he also tells us how the oral Apostolic teaching and Scripture are related.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us,** which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith**. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)

Irenaeus indicates that the Apostles originally preached the Gospel orally. However it was God’s will that this same teaching be handed done by means of the written Scripture. To him the Apostles’ oral teaching and the Scripture are the same thing. As such he writes to seek the proof of the truth in Scripture.

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.

(Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 5, Paragraph 1)

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Is there any other way to prove the truths found in Scripture? Not according to Irenaeus.

But that all his Epistles are consonant to these declarations, I shall, when expounding the apostle, show from the Epistles themselves, in the right place. But while I bring out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do thou also attend to them with patience, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.

(Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 12, Paragraph 9)

What about knowledge that is not recorded in Scripture? Irenaeus tells us that this must be left with God.

If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries. And** there is no cause for wonder if this is the case with us as respects things spiritual and heavenly, and such as require to be made known to us by revelation, since many even of those things which lie at our very feet (I mean such as belong to this world, which we handle, and see, and are in close contact with) transcend our knowledge, so that even these we must leave to God**.

(Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 28, Paragraphs 1-2)

What about the need of tradition to interpret Scripture or the oral transmission of truths not found in Scripture? Irenaeus derides those who suggest that the truth was delivered orally and not by writing.

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures,** they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:** wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”

(Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1)

What then about the perspicuity of Scripture? Irenaeus writes that the entire Scriptures can clearly be understood by all by means of daily study.

** A sound mind**, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures…Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,Cthose persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.

(Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 27, Paragraphs 1 & 2)

So all the Apostolic teaching is clearly set out in Scripture in a way that all can understand them without the need of oral tradition and what is not set out in Scripture we should not inquire about. This sounds very much like Sola Scriptura.

 

[teachccd]

john1968,

I think you missed the point of teachccd’s post. Many Protestant teachings and practices cannot be found directly in Scripture, which means they come from a “tradition” of interpreting Scripture in a certain way.

What I would like you to do, primarily for your own benefit, is take each of the statements in your post above, and quote Scripture to prove your assertions and quote Scripture to disprove those of teachccd’. At some point, you’re got to use/demonstrate Sola Scriptura, if you are going to claim Sola Scriptura.

Anna

Yes, It’s ok to define Trinity, Bible, Incarnation, and the protestant terms of sola scriptura, sola fide, sinners prayer, personal Lord and Savior, altar call, once saved always saved, etc, after the close of scripture. Heaven forbid that we should do the same with purgatory, Immaculate Conception. Papal infallability and so on. Talk about selective theology.

John 1968 is really trying to tie down his tent in gusts of wind. And with traditions he is all over the board. It’s ok here not ok there. He is very confused. Got to give it to him though, he’s a fighter albeit with the disadvantage of wearing blinders…teachccd

 

[john1968]

CFRANCIS…

Sorry to disappoint you…but I have taught history in the recent past…And I didn’t make up any of the stuff I wrote on this website. I have taken graduate level courses in Church history. In fact my Church History teaching in College taught me much of what I know. Also I have read the Ante-Nicene fathers and I found too many holes in RCC teaching there to continue believing in that faith. I’m not saying the RCC is 100% wrong. But there are just too many additions to the faith that have evolved over time. That’s how I feel. You don’t have to agree with me.

You don’t think the Ante-Nicene fathers contradict the RCC, because you never studied them in detail. I doubt you read the parts that contradict the RCC. I doubt you noticed or traced the progression of theology that occurred either.

If you don’t wish to believe what I have written, that’s up to you. I’m not here to please you, nor do I really even care if you believe me or not. If you want to believe me, then fine…if you don’t wish to believe me…that’s fine with me. I don’t have to prove myself to you. Obviously you don’t know the Ante-Nicene fathers that well. I can’t claim any degree of expertise on the ECF after Nicea though. But I don’t claim any expertise in that field either.

I have both a BA and an MA in history. I do not teach history full time, but I have taught classes. In fact I wrote two very lengthy independent study papers on Church history, and I quoted many of Ante-Nicene fathers. I got an A in the paper on church history up till the 4th century. And I received an A- on my paper concerning the evolution of the sacraments.

I do have to admit that neither of my professors were Catholic though. One was Greek Orthodox and the other Congregationalist. But neither of them teach any anti-Catholic lies when it comes to history. In fact they often spoke favorably of the Church. I too have many favorable ideas concerning the RCC. But I also acknowledge that its history is tainted with much corruption and changes in theology. As Luther said, popes and councils have disagreed with each other. It all depends on what point in history you are talking about.

 

[john1968]

UNITY OF TRINITY:

Here are just a few quotes of the Ante-Nicene fathers. No one particular quote convinced me. But a lot of them put together. And the observance of the progression of theology as time went by

This is what I have been led to believe about the early fathers of the first three centuries of Christianity

1. There was no pope back then

I site this information as one example: The first attempt of any Bishop of Rome to try to demand the powers and obedience that we have come to recognize with the papacy occurred with Stephen, bishop of Rome, in and around 250 A.D. In response to this here is one quote which shows that the papacy didn’t exist in the early centuries

“Peter – whom the Lord chose first and upon whom he built the church – did not insolently claim anything to himself. Nor did he arrogantly assume anything when Paul later disputed with him about circumcision. He did not say that he held the primacy and that he needed to be obeyed by novices and those lately come!” – Cyprian (250 A.D.)

1. Some early popes, such as Callistus and Zephyrinus, were accused of heresy, by men who are now considered saints

“Callistus attempted to confirm this heresy—a man cunning in wickedness, and subtle where deceit was concerned, (and) who was impelled by restless ambition to mount the episcopal throne. Now this man moulded to his purpose Zephyrinus, an ignorant and illiterate individual, and one unskilled in ecclesiastical definitions. And inasmuch as Zephyrinus was accessible to bribes, and covetous, Callistus, by luring him through presents, and by illicit demands, was enabled to seduce him into whatever course of action he pleased. And so it was that Callistus succeeded in inducing Zephyrinus to create continually disturbances among the brethren, while he himself took care subsequently, by knavish words, to attach both factions in good-will to himself. And, at one time, to those who entertained true opinions, he would in private allege that they held similar doctrines (with himself), and thus make them his dupes; while at another time he would act similarly towards those (who embraced) the tenets of Sabellius.”– Hippolytus (225 A.D.)

1. There was no confession to clergymen of small sins

“When then I recovered myself, and remembered the glory of God, and took courage, I knelt down and confessed my sins to the Lord once more, as I had done on the former occasion.” – Shepherd of Hermas (140 A.D.)

1. Originally there was no acceptable confession of grave sins to clergymen either. No one thought they had the power to forgive such sins. Here Hippolytus condemns Callistus for granting forgiveness to people who committed grave sins

“The impostor Callistus, having ventured on such opinions, established a school of theology in antagonism to the Church, adopting the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in sensual pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself. For he who is in the habit of attending the congregation of any one else, and is called a Christian, should he commit any transgression; the sin, they say, is not reckoned unto him, provided only he hurries off and attaches himself to the school of Callistus. And many persons were gratified with his regulation, as being stricken in conscience, and at the same time having been rejected by numerous sects; while also some of them, in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us forcibly ejected from the Church. Now such disciples as these passed over to these followers of Callistus, and served to crowd his school.” – Hippolytus (225 A.D.)

1. Donatus Magnus, Novatian, Tertullian and Hippolytus all believed that there was no forgiveness of grave sins after committed after Baptism. This is reflected in words found in the book Shepherd of Hermas

“For the Lord hath sworn by his glory concerning his elect, having determined this very time that if any one shall even now sin, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has its end; the days of repentance are fulfilled to all the saints; but to the heathen, there is repentance even unto the last day.” - Shepherd of Hermas (140 A.D.)

1. There was no transubstantiation

“It is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made to God. Therefore, we read… “Offer to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest your vows.” Thus accordingly, the spiritual “sacrifices of praise” are pointed to.”– Tertullian (197 A.D.)

“The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl mixed wine, which is the symbol of the blood which has been shed for all who believe in him.” – Hyppolytus (225 A.D.)

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought out symbols when he said: “He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith…”– Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

““Eat my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers…The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life…” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

1. No prayers to angels/saints

“We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them.” – Origen (248 A.D.)

“And if we speak of Paradise, the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the saints, severed from the knowledge of this world by that fiery zone as by a sort of enclosure, the Elysian plains have taken possession of their faith.” – Tertullian (197 A.D.)

 

[john1968]

UNITY OF TRINITY:

Your quote:

1. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel came and saluted Mary: “Hail, Full of Grace”, “full of grace” in Greek is Kecharitomene, perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace."Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.(cf. Catholic.com)

This is called eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis). First you create a theology out of thin air. Then you look in the scriptures and try to see if you can stick that theology in there by manipulating words and meanings.

1. With your quote about the pope you say:

Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come"

This quote is from Cyprian. But its funny that when Stephen, bishop of Rome in 250 A.D., demanded that the church obey him, Cyprian said:

“Peter – whom the Lord chose first and upon whom he built the church – did not insolently claim anything to himself. Nor did he arrogantly assume anything when Paul later disputed with him about circumcision. He did not say that he held the primacy and that he needed to be obeyed by novices and those lately come!” – Cyprian (250 A.D.)

You quote Cyprian to defend the papacy, and I quote Cyprian to show you that there originally was no papacy. But I will admit one thing. Early on in history, probably by the late 2nd century, Rome and it’s Bishop began to be held in high esteem and honor, because it was believed that Peter died their and that the Bishop of Rome was Peter’s successor. Yet this was a position of honor…not of power, nor of infallibility. You are trying to use Cyprian words in a way that he did not intend. Through the vast majority of the history of the Church there never was a belief that the pope was infallible. That’s why there were no ex-cathedra statements till the pope had himself declared infallible in the latter half of the 19th century. After he was declared infallible, only then did he begin to make “ex-cathedra” infallible statements. And I believe the pope has only made 2 or 3 of these statements in the history of the RCC. The reason that there have always been Church Councils is because there never was a belief that there was one infallible leader. If that had been the case then there would not have been a need for so many councils. All that would have had to happen is that the pope make an ex-cathedra infallible statement. But of course there were tons of church councils, because originally all bishops were considered equal. In the East the Orthodox church would even be willing to call the pope the first among equals. But not the infallible head.

Also, the word pope comes from the Latin word for father. Originally this term was used for a lot of different bishops. But eventually it came only to mean the Bishop of Rome. The word for father is also the origin of the word for patriarch…as in the Patriarch of Constantinople. Patriarch basically means “father leader”…Pope just means papa…or father.

 

[john1968]

Unity of Trinity…

One of the things that caught my eye the most is the evolution of the supposed sacrament of auricular confession/penance/reconciliation. Originally people just confessed to God. We can see that in the begins passage of the Shepherd of Hermas. But because of the Shepherd of Hermas and other elements within the church arose a belief that if someone commits a grave sin after baptism, that person can never be forgiven. These people were referred to as the lapsed. They had “lapsed” from their faith, never to be readmitted.

These lapsed didn’t know how to be forgiven. Many of them ran to people who were ready to be martyred in the Roman prisons and begged that the martyrs would beseech God on their behalf. I quote Tertullian writing about this in my last posting.

But many people didn’t wish to abandon these people. So an idea came about that if these lapsed sinners confessed before the entire congregation and then performed a long and hard penance, then after they were done with the penance they could return to the church and the bishop would pray, asking God to forgive them. Such a readmittance to the church was usually allowed once in someone’s lifetime.

I first heard about this when I sat in on a lecture in a Franciscan college when I was 17 years old. The Franciscan professor told this to the class, trying to explain how the confessional existed in the early church. But what I found out by studying the Ante-Nicene fathers, years later, is that this type of reconciliation only began in the late second century. Yet sacraments are supposed to be things that were enacted by Christ. How can Christ enact something that didn’t begin till over 150 years after his time? And back then this was just the rudimentary beginnings of the confessional. It evolved into what we have today over many centuries. Now you can go to confession over and over again. You can receive absolution for mortal sins over and over again. And now the priest gives you absolution, instead of just praying to God to forgive you. Also now you can do the penance afterward. While originally the penance had to be completed before you were forgiven. And originally the penances were long and hard. While now it’s just a slap on the wrist. You see…it evolved…it didn’t begin with Jesus.

Okay…so far today I have spent about 3 hours reading and writing stuff…Sorry if I can’t respond to all, but I have a life, a job, and a family. If I post some stuff I’m interested in instead of answering questions, I have that right…It’s my life…sorry to disappoint those who I have not responded to.

 

[ddarko]

So all the Apostolic teaching is clearly set out in Scripture in a way that all can understand them without the need of oral tradition and what is not set out in Scripture we should not inquire about. This sounds very much like Sola Scriptura.

Sigh, there are two possibilities. Either the person who came up with the above conclusion is missing something or Church fathers are missing something.

Logically speaking, it means zero sense to say ‘believe in Sola Scriptura’ when Scripture in written form did not exist till Council of Hippo. If you’ve done your history, you should know that at that time there were multiple conflicting books that were considered part of Scripture while some of the books that we consider today as part of scripture (like Revelation) were considered as NOT.

So it seems that reading your view in to church fathers make them look pretty incompetent and holding on to a nonsense view.

Thankfully though, that is not the case. Ask your-self, what is Paul referring to when he speaks to the Thessalonians in

2 Thessalonians 2:15 : “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the **traditions **that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter”

? You think Paul was just having a bad day? Paul seems to be clearly supporting Tradition, Oral and written. It doesn’t look like he is saying, just believe Scripture. If Sola Scriptura was indeed the only thing that mattered, what on earth is Paul doing here?

So no. Sola Scriptura being practiced in the early church is logically impossible. You can’t rely on something that you do not yet have. What they did INDEED have was Tradition.

Btw, when you reply to me, how about you give me at least one quote that shows Jesus asked his Apostles to WRITE THINGS DOWN. As far as I know, he taught them to TEACH and PREACH. That my friend, gives birth to Tradition.

God Bless