The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[teachccd]

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. **

John 20: 19-23

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. 13 The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. 23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Now, granted the Church did not know what to do with this directive and so the process evolved. But to say that Jesus had no (name removed by moderator)ut to those who could forgive or retain sin is to simply ignore the scriptures. The Church did not “make up” this idea in order that the rigorists would succomb to a made up method of mercy. All of the Sacraments were instituted by Christ to the degree that He either commanded them as in Baptism and the Eucharist or He layed out the perameters for the Church to take the gospel message and live it in their liturgy as a community.

So, yes, there was an evolution to the current norms but that cannot discount the notion that the Church (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) has not continued what has been already revealed in Christ. This follows suit with many of the sacraments since the Church is the community of believers who’s goal is to evangelize and continue the message of Christ.

So your last statement of **“You see…it evolved…it didn’t begin with Jesus” **implies a made up ritual that is unsubstantiated and pure nonsense. We must remind ourselves of the era and circumstances of those times knowing that they did not have all of the resources that we have today to see the big picture. Protestants have a huge advantage of coming into the picture 1500 years later and putting on their vision of hindsight… teachccd

 

[john1968]

Before I go, I did wish to state that while I was an undergrad in college the professor I had for Western Civilization I was a Polish Roman Catholic. And very devout too. Even he told the class that originally the bishop of Rome only held respect and honor, but no superior power. At the time I was Catholic and I spoke to the professor after class to make sure I heard him right. And, from what I remember, he shrugged his shoulders and repeated what he said in class. Originally the bishops of Rome had no more power than any other bishops. They might have held a superior position of honor because they were the successors of Peter AND Paul…but that’s where it ended. Other bishops around the Roman world held similar power. The bishops of Antioch, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Alexandria. Carthage, and eventually Constantinople, all held similar positions of honor. Sorry…but that’s the facts…

The people who come onto this website are for the most part amature historians. They are not people with degrees in history. They do not write history books, nor study them as a profession. They find quotes on the internet and try to use them to prove points when they don’t have a clue. Often the quotes are taken out of context. And when they are not, they’re quotes taken too late in history to prove anything.

Even a Catholic historian, who is worth his weight, will tell you the truth. Unless you find a Catholic historian who is willing to skew history to try to prove some kind of selfish agenda.

I was Catholic. I used to argue just like you guys do. I started studying the Ante-Nicene fathers to try to prove to myself that the RCC was the true church. But I just found too many holes in the history to be able to back that argument. I had to be true to myself and realize that the RCC today is not the Church of yesterday. Even the Greek Orthodox Church is closer to the truth than the RCC is. The GO church also has evolved theology. But much less of it.

That’s all. Tomorrow I’m going to try to read some more of the other quotes on this thread. But it’s hard to do if I’m spending all my time typing a response to someone.

 

[ddarko]

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.

I admire that you read the Ante-Nicene Church fathers but did you bother to read the Acts of the Apostles? If you did, then it would have certainly been clear to you that Apostles carried out Christ’s ministry by administering Sacraments etc.

The “form” of confession might obviously change from time to time and country to country. I would have thought that was obvious. BUT, the idea is still the same. Not everyone has the authority to just go around forgiving people AND you can’t just pray to God and not go to confession. Jesus NEVER said, ‘‘Just pray to the father and he will forgive you’’. Instead he gave the apostles the power to FORGIVE sin. What kind of lunacy is it to give someone the power to forgive sin when all people had to do was pray to God for forgiveness?

So quiet honestly, when it comes to Sacraments, its not just one book actually. The entire Bible screams out SACRAMENTS.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Before I go, I did wish to state that while I was an undergrad in college the professor I had for Western Civilization I was a Polish Roman Catholic. And very devout too. Even he told the class that originally the bishop of Rome only held respect and honor, but no superior power. At the time I was Catholic and I spoke to the professor after class to make sure I heard him right. And, from what I remember, he shrugged his shoulders and repeated what he said in class. Originally the bishops of Rome had no more power than any other bishops. They might have held a superior position of honor because they were the successors of Peter AND Paul…but that’s where it ended. Other bishops around the Roman world held similar power. The bishops of Antioch, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Alexandria. Carthage, and eventually Constantinople, all held similar positions of honor. Sorry…but that’s the facts…

Just a word of advice, just because someone is a Catholic Professor doesn’t make him always CORRECT. In fact, there are many dissident Roman Catholic Theologians and Philosophers.

The fact of Papal primacy is accepted EVEN BY modern PROTESTANT scholars. And I am not talking about Dr. Joe who teaches at University of nowherewill. We are talking about reputable scholars (thanks to academic freedom) who agree that there is certainly evidence of Primacy. If you want some examples of such men, just let me know.

God Bless

 

[john1968]

I was going to go…but I can’t get away…

TEACHCCD…

I have heard exactly what you just said to justify the confessional from a former priest friend of mine. It’s an old explanation used to gloss over true history. But I’m sorry…I don’t buy it. How could the Apostles not know what to do with Jesus’ directive? You can argue that they also didn’t understand that the Mosaic Law was gone, and that gentiles should be preached to. But it was all explained to them within their lifetimes. The Apostles died knowing the truth of the Gospel in full. Peter got a vision…and Paul preached to the gentiles. It was all decided within the Apostles’ life time. But what you are saying is that to the end of their days the Apostles still didn’t know what to do with Jesus’ directive at the end of John’s Gospel. In other words, the Apostles never practiced auricular confession. Yet you claim it is a valid sacrament. That makes no sense. The Apostles were not aware of it, but some of their followers who lived 100 years after their deaths were able to figure it out? Give me a break. That’s just plain ridiculous. That’s just some silly explanation invented to explain away a historical lie.

The idea was that a method was necessary to allow the lapsed back into the church. But in the first century no such method was necessary. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery with no confession or penance. Paul told the church in Corinth to allow the man who was living in sin with his mother the chance to repent and return…yet this happened before any such sacrament of reconciliation was started. Also in the book of Revelation Jesus said that the woman Jezebel was given time to repent of her fornications. And during the persecutions of Nero there is no recorded problem of their being a group of lapsed sinners who were expunged from the church permanently. The problem over the lapsed came into being in the second century. False doctrines had already entered. Yes it happened that soon. And no one knew how to deal with it. They should have dealt with it the same way the first century church dealt with grave sins…let the person repent and return without any newly invented method. But books like the Shepherd of Hermas, with supposed new visions from an angel, taught that grave sins were hard to forgive…so the rigorists won out and forced the creation of a false sacrament. What does it say in Galatians? “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

The rigorists won out because new doctrines came in…and that created a false sacrament which had never existed up to that time before. This sacrament gave the clergy new powers…on and on the evolution continued.

 

[john1968]

ddarko…

Oh…I’m sorry…what is your degree in?

 

[john1968]

ddarko…

Oh…I see…so Protestants who don’t believe in the pope are actually arguing that the pope had primacy in the early church…Wouldn’t that make these Protestants into Catholics? If they believed in the pope, they wouldn’t be Protestants any more. To believe in the pope means that you believe in the RCC.

Please…tell me who are these great individuals who are confused about which faith they believe in…I surprised you didn’t name them in your last posting.

 

[john1968]

ddarko…

Sorry for the sarcasm…it’s just that your statement sounds beyond belief…

 

[john1968]

ddarko…

For a Catholic to say that originally the pope was only give honor and not power doesn’t mean that he is not Catholic, because he may believe in the evolution of Church doctrine. And that such an evolution is valid. But for a Protestant to say that he believes that the pope had primacy in the early church makes him into a Catholic…because being Protestant in itself means that you believe that in the early church there was no such thing as the pope. If there is actually a Protestant professor or historian out there who does teach this, he must be very confused.

Maybe you just misunderstood these people. To say that the bishop of Rome was given honor is not the same as saying that the bishop of Rome was all-powerful. Even the concept of first among equals doesn’t mean that the pope had power. Or maybe these Protestants are admitting to popes having primacy in later centuries, but that their power had no basis in scripture. That again is a different concept.

Like I said…it wasn’t till 250, over 200 years after Jesus’ time, that any bishop of Rome made any demands for obedience from the whole church. And when he did he was ignored for the most part. Cyprian in North Africa condemned this man for his pride, and said that even Peter didn’t claim such power or demand such obedience.

 

[ddarko]

ddarko…

Oh…I’m sorry…what is your degree in?

Trust me, you really don’t want to go there. Firstly, I can just say something really made up right now as my credentials.

OR, I can just tell you mine and belittle you over credentials. So lets not go there shall we

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

ddarko…

Oh…I see…so Protestants who don’t believe in the pope are actually arguing that the pope had primacy in the early church…**Wouldn’t that make these Protestants into Catholics? **If they believed in the pope, they wouldn’t be Protestants any more. To believe in the pope means that you believe in the RCC.

Please…tell me who are these great individuals who are confused about which faith they believe in…I surprised you didn’t name them in your last posting.

Actually, NO. If you’ve done any academic work or moved around in academic circles, YOU WOULD KNOW that the term used is ‘it happens to be this way’ but I believe otherwise.

So most Protestant scholars have written articles on the exegesis of Scriptural passages like Mathew 16 and concluded that there is no other way to interpret it. But they remain protestants. Thats called academia and sadly the human condition. We can know something at times but our upbrining and current life condition can make us not believe what we know.

But thats irrelevant here. What I said stands academically and here are some:-
Dr. R. T. France
Dr. W. F. Albright
Dr. Donald Carson
Dr. Gerhardt Meier

Now if you want the specific quotes from their works, I can arrange that too
OR, if you want some more, that is also possible

God Bless

 

[RobbyS]

One thing I do know is that the ante-nicene fathers quoted scripture a lot. When I say a lot, I mean these guys really knew scripture. But back then the faith was kind of too new to be on the fence between sola scriptura vs Bible and tradition. There really weren’t that many traditions around. The faith was just too new for t
It’s all up to what you believe. My personal belief is that its all in the Bible and that’s where it stands. You, on the other hand, might believe differently.

You use the term “clutter” to describe what was normal cultural development and also what Newman has called the Development of Doctrine. The two are often interwinded. The same doctrine will be expressed differently in different cultures. To take something that is obvious, a German, Polish, and Irish Church in 19th Century Chicago had enough differences that Catholics of one congregation often did not feel comfortable in the other, and it was more than just a language problem. Imagine the differences between us and the Jews of the Jerusalem Church. More to the point, imagine the differences between the Reformers of the 16th Century and the First Century Church. Worlds apart, literally, but the
Protestants of the 16th Century could in all sincerity read "
Acts," and imagine those persons of 1500 years before to be persons not much different from themselves. They could also imagine that, hey, their Eucharists were just the same as that of Acts. But neither Acts nor any other texts give any details as to the forms of worship and prayer. We really have to thinK; Well, suppose we were First Century Jews. How could we do it? Suppose it to be a communal meal. But actually how did those Jews behave at meals? Not the way that DiVinci pictured the Last Supper. Nor can we find expressed any reference to the Eucharist that settles the issue between Catholics and Lutherans: What is the role of the priest? If you shares Luther’s idea of the economy of Salvation, they will have a minimal role, something like the role that elders play on Passover. If you think like Thomas More, you have a very different view. And I suggest that More was closer to the truth than Luther if only because More was a much more imaginative man than Luther. Brilliant those he was, Luther has a very narrow view of the world and history. More, as a man of affairs, had already leapt beyond the parochial, and not only had a glimpse of the sere diversity of humanity. More could, had he gone that way. have translated the Bible, Luther could not have written " Utopia." More had a sense of the way that history unfolds naturally. I don’t think Luther had. I don’t think the Reformation had either. Which is why Protestant missions abroad did not thrive until the 19th Century. It was particular and ahistorical. The Catholic Church was never so cutural bound.

 

[ddarko]

ddarko…

Sorry for the sarcasm…it’s just that your statement sounds beyond belief…

No worries. I know it does. In fact, if these above people lived sometime back, such unbiased study and presentations of academic work probably would not be possible. Fortunately, we live in a time of academic freedom.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

ddarko…

For a Catholic to say that originally the pope was only give honor and not power doesn’t mean that he is not Catholic, because he may believe in the evolution of Church doctrine. And that such an evolution is valid. But for a Protestant to say that he believes that the pope had primacy in the early church makes him into a Catholic…because being Protestant in itself means that you believe that in the early church there was no such thing as the pope. If there is actually a Protestant professor or historian out there who does teach this, he must be very confused.

Maybe you just misunderstood these people. To say that the bishop of Rome was given honor is not the same as saying that the bishop of Rome was all-powerful. Even the concept of first among equals doesn’t mean that the pope had power. Or maybe these Protestants are admitting to popes having primacy in later centuries, but that their power had no basis in scripture. That again is a different concept.

Like I said…it wasn’t till 250, over 200 years after Jesus’ time, that any bishop of Rome made any demands for obedience from the whole church. And when he did he was ignored for the most part. Cyprian in North Africa condemned this man for his pride, and said that even Peter didn’t claim such power or demand such obedience.

Once again, it appears that you might have missed the entire Post #131 I made to you. I reproduce it here for your convenience.

Unfortunately, you have been mislead by incorrect Protestant teachings. So here is some proof from Scripture ALONE (that should make you very happy I hope ) that Peter did enjoy a certain Primacy.

Mathew 16:9 Jesus speaks about giving “keys to the kingdom of heaven”… hmmm… do you by any chance know what this is referring to? Let me give you a hint, flip to Isaiah 22.

Acts 5:1-11 Talk about Peter’s primacy. Have you heard this mentioned about any of the other apostles?

Acts 11 Guess whose authorizing FOR THE FIRST TIME that gentiles can receive salvation? PETER!! None of them goes, “hey lets ask the other Apostles if they are down with this etc.” Instead, they accept it. Just like that!

Acts 15 There’s a HUGE debate. Everyone is going at each other. Peter gets up, speaks, what do we have? SILENCE!!!

Now lets flip back a little

Acts 1 What do you see here about the discussion about Judas. Who speaks yet again? PETER. Lets also look at what he says… notice what is about? It’s about Apostolic succession. Peter or none of the other Apostles went, hey, lets just stick with 11. They appointed a ‘‘successor’’ who has the same status as an apostle.

Now I could go on and on. Most of the book of Acts show the Primacy of Peter. Even if you discard Acts, just the words of Jesus to Peter about the keys should put any primacy issues you have to rest. When the “Keys” are understood properly in light of Isaiah 22, Primacy is as certain as it can be. Just let me know if that point is still unclear.

Oh and also, Tradition supports the Primacy view. I could give example but I am sure it won’t mean much if you are hard core Sola Scriptura anyways, So I think the above would suffice.

I don’t know about you, but as far as I can understand, your view of Peter just being honored certainly can have no place according to what is written in Scripture Alone

Btw, if you still think what I presented above is false, please address the passage where Jesus hands Peter the keys. The Protestant scholars I referred to here agree on that passage as showing the Primacy of Peter together with Isaiah 22. I would certainly love to hear what your alternate theory might be

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Unfortunately, you have been mislead by incorrect Protestant teachings. So here is some proof from Scripture ALONE (that should make you very happy I hope ) that Peter did enjoy a certain Primacy.

Mathew 16:9 Jesus speaks about giving “keys to the kingdom of heaven”… hmmm… do you by any chance know what this is referring to? Let me give you a hint, flip to Isaiah 22.

Acts 5:1-11 Talk about Peter’s primacy. Have you heard this mentioned about any of the other apostles?

Acts 11 Guess whose authorizing FOR THE FIRST TIME that gentiles can receive salvation? PETER!! None of them goes, “hey lets ask the other Apostles if they are down with this etc.” Instead, they accept it. Just like that!

Acts 15 There’s a HUGE debate. Everyone is going at each other. Peter gets up, speaks, what do we have? SILENCE!!!

Now lets flip back a little

Acts 1 What do you see here about the discussion about Judas. Who speaks yet again? PETER. Lets also look at what he says… notice what is about? It’s about Apostolic succession. Peter or none of the other Apostles went, hey, lets just stick with 11. They appointed a ‘‘successor’’ who has the same status as an apostle.

Now I could go on and on. Most of the book of Acts show the Primacy of Peter. Even if you discard Acts, just the words of Jesus to Peter about the keys should put any primacy issues you have to rest. When the “Keys” are understood properly in light of Isaiah 22, Primacy is as certain as it can be. Just let me know if that point is still unclear.

Oh and also, Tradition supports the Primacy view. I could give example but I am sure it won’t mean much if you are hard core Sola Scriptura anyways, So I think the above would suffice.

God Bless

 

[cfrancis]

This is at least the second time you’ve presented these quotations, and in both cases, you’ve not provided the source of the quote. That intrigued me.

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.)

St Cyprian’s quote comes from his Letter to Quintus about the baptism of heretics. Here it is as it is actually written:

And therefore, because there can be nothing common to falsehood and truth, to darkness and light, to death and immortality, to Antichrist and Christ, we ought by all means to maintain the unity of the Catholic Church, and not to give way to the enemies of faith and truth in any respect.
3. Neither must we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.

The incident to which Cyprian refers (“neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him”) in recorded in Gal 2:11-14. What is Cyprian saying here? That Peter, when confronted by Paul, recognized his fault and humbly accepted the proper rebuke; Peter did not throw in Paul’s face what he could have: that Peter had primacy and you, Paul, you “novice” and one “lately come” must obey me.
Certainly reading St Cyprian in context reveals the opposite of what John wishes.

 

[cfrancis]

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.)

You’ll get no argument form the folks on this board that there have been popes who have not followed Christ as they should have. But these popes never provided a new doctrine to the Church, or overruled and existing doctrine.

But the interesting point of your argument is this: you state:

1. There was no pope back then

But then state:

1. Some early popes

Can’t have it both ways!
By the way, here’s Hippolytus’ opinion of St Peter:

First of all Peter, the rock of the faith, whom Christ our God called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the keys of the kingdom, has instructed us to this effect: “Know this first, children, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.

 

[cfrancis]

1. There was no confession to clergymen of small sins
2. 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
3. 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

WE’ll deal with the above later, but I have to ask: as you say you were drawn away from the Church by what you perceived the Anti-Nicene fathers to be saying, are you saying you agree with Donatus, Novation, Tertullian and Hippolytus on the subject of forgiveness of sin after baptism?

 

[cfrancis]

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.)

Here are some quotes from these guys and others - check them out: Eucharist in the Church Fathers

 

[LionHeart777]

John1968,

“Baptityrrean” = Baptist/Presbyterian hybrid (self-proclaimed remember.) Actually Reformed Baptist was probably closer, although I was heavily influenced by theologians from Dallas Theological Seminary.

I said ante-Nicene Fathers because I was looking for quotes that pre-dated Constantine as I was skeptical. As I said, I came to a different conclusion.