The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpectatorX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps someone has beaten me to pointing this out:
Objectively speaking here are some things the early church did NOT have:
Eucharistic Adoration, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, co-redemptrix language, vestments, mandatory celibacy, the language of infallibility, withholding the cup from the laity, the rosary, scapulars, etc.
Eucharistic Adoration-not a teaching, a practice. Big difference.
Purgatory-they had it, the statements regarding it are laid out in the Old and New Testament, Tradition, and ECF-the earliest notation regarding it I have found is that Tryphaena in AD 160-
“And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again receives her. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, thou shaft have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the just.”"
Indulgences were around as well. Augustine taught that as the souls of the departed were not separated from the Church, therefore, prayers for them would benefit.

The Immaculate Conception was well known enough and often referred to by the ECF.

A few quotes:
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).
“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).
“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).
“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).
I cut it off at 500 AD. I have many more, if you are interested.

Vestments information-already provided.

Mandatory celibacy-that is a discipline, not a teaching. Similar to the covering of the head. Protestant ministers who are married may be deacons, and I believe, under certain circumstances, priests.

Infallibility was around as well. That was given by Christ when He stated the Gates of Hell would not prevail. For the Church to err in teachings of faith and morals would be for the gates of Hell to prevail. Is the Pope infallible when asked if the Dodgers are superiors to the White Sox? No.

Rosary and scapulars, again, not teachings. Traditions (it would be a small ‘t’ if it were not the first word in the sentence). Disciplines. Not required.

As regards withholding the cup from the laity, I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean.

(OK, back to reading the rest of the thread.) :tiphat:
 
Perhaps someone has beaten me to pointing this out:

Eucharistic Adoration-not a teaching, a practice. Big difference.
Purgatory-they had it, the statements regarding it are laid out in the Old and New Testament, Tradition, and ECF-the earliest notation regarding it I have found is that Tryphaena in AD 160-

Indulgences were around as well. Augustine taught that as the souls of the departed were not separated from the Church, therefore, prayers for them would benefit.

The Immaculate Conception was well known enough and often referred to by the ECF.

A few quotes:

I cut it off at 500 AD. I have many more, if you are interested.

Vestments information-already provided.

Mandatory celibacy-that is a discipline, not a teaching. Similar to the covering of the head. Protestant ministers who are married may be deacons, and I believe, under certain circumstances, priests.

Infallibility was around as well. That was given by Christ when He stated the Gates of Hell would not prevail. For the Church to err in teachings of faith and morals would be for the gates of Hell to prevail. Is the Pope infallible when asked if the Dodgers are superiors to the White Sox? No.

Rosary and scapulars, again, not teachings. Traditions (it would be a small ‘t’ if it were not the first word in the sentence). Disciplines. Not required.

As regards withholding the cup from the laity, I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean.

(OK, back to reading the rest of the thread.) :tiphat:
Problem for many is their profound confusion between doctrine and disciplines or practices. When I hear:
Objectively speaking here are some things the early church did NOT have:
Eucharistic Adoration, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, co-redemptrix language, vestments, mandatory celibacy, the language of infallibility, withholding the cup from the laity, the rosary, scapulars, etc.
Then the same can be said about: altar calls,preachers wearing suits,tv. screens,bible studies,stages,females giving sermons,bibles in-hand for Sunday services,etc,etc,etc.
 
Augustine also taught that unbaptized little babies go straight to hell and he had such a disgust for sex after years of debauchery that he felt sex should only be undertaken for procreation, shouldn’t be enjoyed, and that it was a tragedy overall that we even had to have sex at all because it’s so crude and sin-producing. He also taught a male baby didn’t receive his soul for 40 days and a female baby didn’t receive hers until 90 days. Now, would Catholics be inclined to believe all these things just because Augustine encouraged these notions? Why must I believe Augustine’s theory regarding indulgences (the term and the idea didn’t even exist so this is anachronistic) if I find his ensoulment theories and sexual ideas and babies to hell to be highly questionable? Indulgences didn’t exist until the Middle Ages. Ask the Orthodox.
Indulgences were around as well. Augustine taught that as the souls of the departed were not separated from the Church, therefore, prayers for them would benefit.

The Immaculate Conception was well known enough and often referred to by the ECF.

A few quotes:

I cut it off at 500 AD. I have many more, if you are interested.

Vestments information-already provided.

Mandatory celibacy-that is a discipline, not a teaching. Similar to the covering of the head. Protestant ministers who are married may be deacons, and I believe, under certain circumstances, priests.

Infallibility was around as well. That was given by Christ when He stated the Gates of Hell would not prevail. For the Church to err in teachings of faith and morals would be for the gates of Hell to prevail. Is the Pope infallible when asked if the Dodgers are superiors to the White Sox? No.

Rosary and scapulars, again, not teachings. Traditions (it would be a small ‘t’ if it were not the first word in the sentence). Disciplines. Not required.

As regards withholding the cup from the laity, I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean.

(OK, back to reading the rest of the thread.) :tiphat:
 
You used my quote so let’s look it over. You talk about the difference between doctrine and discipline and imply that myself and others don’t know the difference, which of course, we indeed do. So let’s look at my quote:

Objectively speaking here are some things the early church did NOT have:
Eucharistic Adoration, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, co-redemptrix language, vestments, mandatory celibacy, the language of infallibility, withholding the cup from the laity, the rosary, scapulars, etc
.

Adoration is a discipline, fine enough. But is purgatory, the doctrine of indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, Mary as Co-redemptrix, infallibility, etc. are those disciplines or doctrines that one must buy into as a Catholic? The Immaculate Conception, ironically, is one of the few mandatory “infallible” teachings of the popes that has an anathema on it! Either I believe Mary was immaculate or I die eternally in hell. Does that sound like a discipline or dogma/doctrine?

So what does that have to do with giant screens, preachers wearing suits, altar calls, and the like? By the way, most Anglicans don’t use such things 😉
Problem for many is their profound confusion between doctrine and disciplines or practices. When I hear:

Then the same can be said about: altar calls,preachers wearing suits,tv. screens,bible studies,stages,females giving sermons,bibles in-hand for Sunday services,etc,etc,etc.
 
Yeah, I’m not about to lead the “out with Adoration” league. I do have concerns that this use of the Eucharist leads to a superstitious attitude, and to the attitude that only having the Mass is really important for the Church and neglect of other ministries, and even the weird Catholic practice of half the congregation heading out the door as soon as they have received at Mass. (not in all parishes, but surprisingly common.)

When I consider it, it is also significant to me that none of the other Apostolic churches do it. But it certainly isn’t an evil practice.
If by “it”, you mean adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, you’ll find Anglican churches that do it. And I’m saying we’re Apostolic.

Just dipped into the thread, so may have missed something.

GKC
 
You used my quote so let’s look it over. You talk about the difference between doctrine and discipline and imply that myself and others don’t know the difference, which of course, we indeed do. So let’s look at my quote:

Objectively speaking here are some things the early church did NOT have:
Eucharistic Adoration, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, co-redemptrix language, vestments, mandatory celibacy, the language of infallibility, withholding the cup from the laity, the rosary, scapulars, etc
.

Adoration is a discipline, fine enough. But is purgatory, the doctrine of indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, Mary as Co-redemptrix, infallibility, etc. are those disciplines or doctrines that one must buy into as a Catholic? The Immaculate Conception, ironically, is one of the few mandatory “infallible” teachings of the popes that has an anathema on it! Either I believe Mary was immaculate or I die eternally in hell. Does that sound like a discipline or dogma/doctrine?

So what does that have to do with giant screens, preachers wearing suits, altar calls, and the like? By the way, most Anglicans don’t use such things 😉
Purgatory, Indulgences, Co-redemptorix, etc. are all dogmas. Each had been known and used in the early Church ( read the early Church Fathers ). Various Church councils,down through the ages, have defined them for simpler understanding. Each and every dogma of the Catholic Church is supported by scripture and Sacred Tradition. Nothing can be defined as dogma unless it is supported by scripture and Sacred Tradition. For further information I suggest you consult the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
 
I understand all that Javl. The original point was the “early church.” Someone was saying they couldn’t understand how the early church could be considered protestant by protestants. I merely pointed out that all these developments are considered innovations since they did NOT exist in the early church. I’m find with Newman development theory acceptance, but not with the retro anachronistic view that these things were always around…kinda goofy…
Purgatory, Indulgences, Co-redemptorix, etc. are all dogmas. Each had been known and used in the early Church ( read the early Church Fathers ). Various Church councils,down through the ages, have defined them for simpler understanding. Each and every dogma of the Catholic Church is supported by scripture and Sacred Tradition. Nothing can be defined as dogma unless it is supported by scripture and Sacred Tradition. For further information I suggest you consult the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
 
If by “it”, you mean adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, you’ll find Anglican churches that do it. And I’m saying we’re Apostolic.

Just dipped into the thread, so may have missed something.

GKC
I was thinking more of the EO, OO, and other such groups, although I think one could argue that although some Anglicans may do it (and I’ve been to Anglican Adoration myself), it is an innovation. Anglicans are kind of amphibians in a way, so what they do isn’t always as helpful as it might be otherwise. It seems to me that those who practice adoration picked it up from Catholics.
 
I was thinking more of the EO, OO, and other such groups, although I think one could argue that although some Anglicans may do it (and I’ve been to Anglican Adoration myself), it is an innovation. Anglicans are kind of amphibians in a way, so what they do isn’t always as helpful as it might be otherwise. It seems to me that those who practice adoration picked it up from Catholics.
We call it recovering our lost heritage.

GKC
 
Augustine also taught that unbaptized little babies go straight to hell and he had such a disgust for sex after years of debauchery that he felt sex should only be undertaken for procreation, shouldn’t be enjoyed, and that it was a tragedy overall that we even had to have sex at all because it’s so crude and sin-producing. He also taught a male baby didn’t receive his soul for 40 days and a female baby didn’t receive hers until 90 days. Now, would Catholics be inclined to believe all these things just because Augustine encouraged these notions? Why must I believe Augustine’s theory regarding indulgences (the term and the idea didn’t even exist so this is anachronistic) if I find his ensoulment theories and sexual ideas and babies to hell to be highly questionable? Indulgences didn’t exist until the Middle Ages. Ask the Orthodox.
gurney, can you tell me where Augustine says all that about sex? I just read the confessions and he did struggle alot with sex but, he never went that far ( he was disgusted with sex, it’s crude and sin producing) in the Confessions. He may have been referring to his own experiences and his addiction to sex in particular, not sex as a whole. Can you refer me to his writings where he makes those claims?

Also, I believe you are confusing Aquinas and Augustine as regards the soul entering the human baby. Aquinas was taking Aristotle’s view on the 40 days for male and 90 days for female. Even though he accepted Aristotle’s view, he maintained that abortion was always a grave sin even if the soul hadn’t entered the body. Here’s a link that addresses Aquinas’s view on the soul entering the body. It’s about the 10th question from the top of the page.

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm
 
No, Augustine did say that. I have a few books on Augustine, one by Peter Brown, I’ll have to get back to you. I had to study him in college for an ancient Christianity course. I had so many notes and articles on him as well. He did indeed have a repulsion toward sex because for him it was a bad experience and it obviously hankered him. It was the main thing in his life that caused him to sin so he wanted to flee a thousand miles from it. It’s understandable from his point of view and experience. But he did believe that about ensoulment. You can read his comments about ensoulment in “Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia” by Wm. B. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802838438. Look it up maybe on Amazon, etc. And you’re right about Augustine being 100000% pro-life and anti-abortion. I never intended for my ensoulment point to be taken to be a pro-choice view on his part. I merely mentioned all these things because some folks in here quote Augustine on obscure topics as if he were the magisterium. The man had some very odd opinions and views about some things. We must look holistically at the body of Church history and contributions of all saints, not just one.

I want it known, however, that Augustine is nothing short of genius in my book and his views shaped Catholicism and must of the Reformation views. He’s brilliant, a holy, saintly man. I admire him very much and totally agree with him on Original Sin over the Orthodox views we here in here all the time.
gurney, can you tell me where Augustine says all that about sex? I just read the confessions and he did struggle alot with sex but, he never went that far ( he was disgusted with sex, it’s crude and sin producing) in the Confessions. He may have been referring to his own experiences and his addiction to sex in particular, not sex as a whole. Can you refer me to his writings where he makes those claims?

I like your screen name, brother. I’m a big Tolkien fan myself. Lord of the Rings in book or movie form ROCKS!

Also, I believe you are confusing Aquinas and Augustine as regards the soul entering the human baby. Aquinas was taking Aristotle’s view on the 40 days for male and 90 days for female. Even though he accepted Aristotle’s view, he maintained that abortion was always a grave sin even if the soul hadn’t entered the body. Here’s a link that addresses Aquinas’s view on the soul entering the body. It’s about the 10th question from the top of the page.

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm
 
Early church Fathers on immaculate conception

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).
Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).
 
The Early Church Fathers believed in purgatory and prayers for the dead.
Clement of Alexandria

The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 [A.D. 150-215]).

Origen

If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works. (Patres Groeci. XIII, col. 445, 448 [A.D. 185-232]).

Abercius

The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian

That allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25-26] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the judge . . . and lest this judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? (The Soul 35 [A.D. 210]).

The faithful widow prays for the soul of her husband, and begs for him in the interim repose, and participation in the first resurrection, and offers prayers on the anniversary of his death (Monogamy 10 [A.D. 213]).

Cyprian

It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the Day of Judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition, next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep. For we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).

John Chrysostom

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job l:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf (Homilies on Philippians 3:9-10 [A.D. 402]).

Augustine

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).
 
I just got all of that from somone’s blog. I didn’t do my homework, just copy and paste. All the same, each quote is sited so I’ll look them on on Newadvent. Sorry for the massive posts, I actually had to delete a few quotes!
 
Man! I just saw your comment about Tolkien! I love Lord of the Rings man! Its good to know there are other Tolkien fans in here, Ive only posted on these forums a few times. Also, I have a book called “Unabridged Christianity” that addresses all of these topics being discussed and at the end of each chapter there are a few quotes from the church fathers on all of the issues like purgatory, tradition, Priests forgiving sins, praying for the dead, real presence etc.
I have to find the book at my house so I can get the quotes, this is the book
amazon.com/Unabridged-Christianity-Biblical-Questions-Catholic/dp/1579180566
 
Trust me, Frodo, we have all seen these quotes before. CAF is a proof-texting cut and paste utopia LOL…it drives me nutsoid. Just cite a few and in context and defend and debate holistically not father by father.

Ironically you can go through and find a heap of quotes from the Fathers saying the exact opposite of just about anything. For every five quotes making a pope sound sovereign and all powerful, you can find five quotes that argue the opposite.

Proof texting…(in the voice of Wizard of Oz)…I’m melting!!!
I just got all of that from somone’s blog. I didn’t do my homework, just copy and paste. All the same, each quote is sited so I’ll look them on on Newadvent. Sorry for the massive posts, I actually had to delete a few quotes!
 
Man! I just saw your comment about Tolkien! I love Lord of the Rings man! Its good to know there are other Tolkien fans in here, Ive only posted on these forums a few times. Also, I have a book called “Unabridged Christianity” that addresses all of these topics being discussed and at the end of each chapter there are a few quotes from the church fathers on all of the issues like purgatory, tradition, Priests forgiving sins, praying for the dead, real presence etc.
I have to find the book at my house so I can get the quotes, this is the book
amazon.com/Unabridged-Christianity-Biblical-Questions-Catholic/dp/1579180566
I may be and OLD man, but I also admire Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. You can list me as a FANatic.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Same here. It’s blasphemy not to like LOTR…pure heresy! 😛
I may be and OLD man, but I also admire Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. You can list me as a FANatic.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top