Troubling question on Church Fathers

[Genghis]

Hello all, first post!

I encountered this question on another “forum” and need a good defense.

I just read an answer by a Roman Catholic, who wrote
"The more “well read” one is the more the chance they will be a Catholic Christian. Cardinal Newman (a convert from Protestantism) said “to be deep in history, is to cease being Protestant.” "

I believe the opposite is true. Roman Catholics, please take your time and read these late first century/early second century sources and tell me where ANY of them write about Mariology, transsubstantiation, or any other solely Roman Catholic doctrine:

1. The Epistle of Clement of Rome, written between 95 and 96 CE: earlychristianwritings.com/te…

1. An Epistle from Ignatius to Polycarp, written some time prior to Ignatius’ martyrdom in 117 CE: earlychristianwritings.com/te…

1. An Epistle from Polycarp to the Philippians, written some time between 120 and 140 CE: earlychristianwritings.com/te…

1. The only existing fragments of writings from Papias, a disciple of the Apostle John himself (various early dates): earlychristianwritings.com/te…

If you believe I’ve left out any late first century/early second century sources, please provide a link and explain how it teaches purely Roman Catholic doctrine.

I’m not trying to incite hatred – but I AM interested in setting the record straight. If a person has actually read the VERY EARLY Church writers, he or she will see that there is NO MENTION of any doctrine even remotely resembling Catholic doctrine.

I need help either finding something that proves her wrong, or finding a reason that her limiting this to “VERY EARLY” Christians (1st/2nd Century) is flawed.

Thanks

 

[Genghis]

Here is a response to her post from another poster.

Until you come to about 325 and the early Catholic councils, the existing documents support the Bible, not the various Roman Catholic rituals. After Nicea began a long history of men’s writings and rewritings, many of which are not Biblical, but some of which The Roman Church says are necessary for salvation.

Speaking of reading, many years ago a friend who had studied for the priesthood (until he got cold feet at the very last minute) told me that throughout his entire study, he had never been allowed to have a Bible of his own to read. Everything in the Bible had to be filtered through his superiors and taught to him. I find that really odd and I hope they’ve long since changed this practice.

I, too, have no wish to stir up trouble against Catholics or offend anyone. Anyone with factual Biblical evidence that I am wrong is welcome to present it, publicly or privately.

While Christians are not under Mosaic Law, Jesus was and He kpet the law perfectly. Mosaic Law absolutely forbids the drinking of blood. Jesus could not have endorsed this, without comitting a sin. Add that to the fact that transfiguration negates Christ’s sacrifice, making it necessary to repeat it over and over, as Suzanne pointed out, and John 6:48 must be figurative, not literal.

 

[djrakowski]

Hi Genghis, and welcome to the forums!

I’d recommend that you ask her specifically what content in those links contradicts Catholic teaching today. You can’t defend against accusations that are so vague.

 

[djrakowski]

Another thought based on the first post.

She said “I’m not trying to incite hatred – but I AM interested in setting the record straight. If a person has actually read the VERY EARLY Church writers, he or she will see that there is NO MENTION of any doctrine even remotely resembling Catholic doctrine.”

Ask her, does everything written by the earliest Christians have to include commentary on every Christian doctrine? Does every book of the New Testament address exactly the entire content of all Christian doctrine?

She’s asking something totally unreasonable here.

 

[majick275]

here’s a good link:

searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/ant/

Notice the volume of works here. If you read all of the notes as well you find it’s not as easy as just reading the letters. You have to do a lot of research to determine what was originally written by whom. In any case, Due to the large volume of material to work with, would you be willing to start with one topic and work from there?

 

[djrakowski]

Here is a response to her post from another poster.

This part:

Speaking of reading, many years ago a friend who had studied for the priesthood (until he got cold feet at the very last minute) told me that throughout his entire study, he had never been allowed to have a Bible of his own to read. Everything in the Bible had to be filtered through his superiors and taught to him. I find that really odd and I hope they’ve long since changed this practice.

is nothing but unsubstantied rumor. She’ll have to produce documents that say that Catholic seminarians aren’t allowed to read the Bible.

Anyone can claim anything they want, but they have to bring proof, and if they refuse, you can dismiss their arguments.

 

[Genghis]

I really had no idea how vehemently some people (other Christians) oppose the Church until recently. Wow. And no matter how many times I tell people on that other forum that they have mistaken conceptions about Catholicism and explain why - they still go on spouting the same old tired cliched grievances. That one, however, was different, and threw me for a bit of a loop.

 

[djrakowski]

More:

While Christians are not under Mosaic Law, Jesus was and He kpet the law perfectly. Mosaic Law absolutely forbids the drinking of blood. Jesus could not have endorsed this, without comitting a sin. Add that to the fact that transfiguration negates Christ’s sacrifice, making it necessary to repeat it over and over, as Suzanne pointed out, and John 6:48 must be figurative, not literal.

This is utter nonsense that betrays this individual’s ignorance of Catholicism, particularly as regards transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ when we celebrate the Eucharist at Mass - it is a re-presentation of the same sacrifice that occured on Calvary. She’s trying to back you into saying that you believe in cannibalism, which isn’t true, since cannibalism is the consumption of human tissue, and what we’re consuming in the Eucharist is the sacramental Real Presence of Jesus Christ, who is a divine person.

Here’s what the Catechism really has to say about this subject:
CCC 1366:

[1366](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1366.htm’) The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it *re-presents *(makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its *memorial *and because it *applies *its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

[1367](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1367.htm’) The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

Let them know that if they’re going to disagree with Catholic teaching on any given subject, they ought to learn what it really is.

 

[djrakowski]

I really had no idea how vehemently some people (other Christians) oppose the Church until recently. Wow. And no matter how many times I tell people on that other forum that they have mistaken conceptions about Catholicism and explain why - they still go on spouting the same old tired cliched grievances. That one, however, was different, and threw me for a bit of a loop.

In many cases, these people stake their existence on opposition to the Catholic Church, and it doesn’t matter how many times you refute their tired claims, they’ll just come back with more accusations. I suspect that, if you use any of the answers you find here on these forums and in the Catholic Answers library, you won’t have been the first to challenge them on any of these points, but they’ll keep trotting out the same well-worn charges.

here’s a good link:

searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/ant/

Notice the volume of works here. If you read all of the notes as well you find it’s not as easy as just reading the letters. You have to do a lot of research to determine what was originally written by whom. In any case, Due to the large volume of material to work with, would you be willing to start with one topic and work from there?

This is excellent advice on how to read the material she’s linked in that post.

 

[VociMike]

Until you come to about 325 and the early Catholic councils, the existing documents support the Bible, not the various Roman Catholic rituals. After Nicea began a long history of men’s writings and rewritings, many of which are not Biblical, but some of which The Roman Church says are necessary for salvation.

Consider what this means. It means that the Christians who died by the thousands for the faith, suddenly decided to abandon it. It means that at the same time they were fighting certain heresies (that’s what Councils are all about, after all) and canonizing the New Testament, they were blithely accepting other heresies. And furthermore, they accepted those other heresies without the slightest peep of protest! Not one single Church Father fought against these new heresies. There is not one shred of evidence that the Church opposed these heresies in any way, even at the very same time there is massive evidence documenting the Church’s opposition to other heresies.

That’s just a long way to say that the quoted claim is pure self-serving fantasy.

 

[Mad_Amos]

While Christians are not under Mosaic Law, Jesus was and He kept [sic] the law perfectly. Mosaic Law absolutely forbids the drinking of blood. Jesus could not have endorsed this, without comitting [sic] a sin.

Christ, faithful circumcised Jew though He was, is also Almighty God. The law is, was, and forever remains under His authority. Quibbling on the above point is blatant misdirection. Jesus Himself explained it perfectly when He stated “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Regardless of that fact, Christ’s command to commemorate His Sacrifice was directed toward Christians, not Jews. He therefore, by definition, would not have been advocating sin.

As to scriptural basis for the doctrine of Transubstantiation, Jesus could not have been clearer in the discourse of John 6:52-61. Christ was certainly wont for elucidating through parable and idiom, but the reactions of the disciples to this particular teaching spoke volumes as to exactly what it was they had understood.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? - John 6:53

***Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? ***- John 6:61

The aforementioned Jewish prohibition against the ingestion of blood served to underscore the utter seriousness of what Christ was proclaiming, since He was fully expectant of how it would be received. Not only does the Lord reiterate His teaching, however, but He proceeds to clarify it in excruciating detail, even to the point of allowing those who did not agree with Him to simply walk away.

***After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. ***– John 6:67

Had He not actually been speaking of His very Flesh, would He also have found it necessary to assuage the concerns of His disciples over consuming it?

***It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. ***- John 6:64

Here Our Lord makes very clear that “dead” flesh removed from the Spirit is indeed without merit. This is not cannibalism He is suggesting. He is speaking of a Sacrament with supreme spiritual significance:

***This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. ***- John 6:59

By comparing His Precious Body to manna consumed by the Jews in the desert, He confirmed what His disciples had already suspected with great apprehension - that He was, in fact, speaking of actually eating His Flesh.

 

[VociMike]

Hello all, first post!

I encountered this question on another “forum” and need a good defense.

I need help either finding something that proves her wrong, or finding a reason that her limiting this to “VERY EARLY” Christians (1st/2nd Century) is flawed.

Thanks

None of your posted links work (maybe it has to do with the fact that you copied and pasted the text).

But anyway, what kind of argument is “Writing X doesn’t show any solely Catholic doctrine”? Heck, large sections of the Catholic Catechism don’t show any solely Catholic doctrine!

It’s like complaining that a collection of articles on the human foot don’t talk whatsoever about the human ear, and therefore it is clear that the medical profession had never studied the human ear and didn’t even believe that the human ear exists.

 

[1ke]

newadvent.org has literally HUNDREDS of writings from the Early Church Fathers (ECF).

Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, etc, certainly DO have Catholic understandings of Scripture and Doctrine. She linked to only a couple of documents out of literally HUNDREDS… I wonder why? Could it be because the other letters are less supportive of her standpoint? Um… yeah, I think that’s it.

I suggest you invest in a couple of books:

Faith of the Early Fathers: Vol 1 by William Jurgens

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church by Kenneth D. Whitehead

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I’m Catholic today in great part because of the Church Fathers. While in Grad School at Northwestern University I once attended a Serbian Othodox Church and I believe would have converted if I had known that married men could become a priest. I was already on track to become a United Methodist minister. Two roads diverged. Long I stood and looked down both and sorry was I that I could not travel both and be one traveler. (With apologies to Robert Frost).

I studied the Fathers extensively but believe I could be a good Protestant pastor, secretly believing the faith of the early Church, and slowly introduce people to the teachings of the true Church. It rarely happened, though sometimes it did. I thought I could be like the “Green Beret” of the real Church and evangelize people that the “stuffy” Catholic and Orthodox Church could not.

I was wrong. God, ie., Truth, caught up with. I could no longer resist God’s call. I could no longer pretend that I could be faithful to Christ and His Church and loyal to what I knew the Early Church taught and practiced while still being a minister in a pretend Christian Church. I converted and while I am no longer a minister and wish I could serve more at the altar, I am happily part of the real Church that Christ established and has nurtured these two millenia.

CDL

 

[SPH1]

Hello all, first post!

I encountered this question on another “forum” and need a good defense.

I believe the opposite is true. Roman Catholics, please take your time and read these late first century/early second century sources and tell me where ANY of them write about Mariology, transsubstantiation, or any other solely Roman Catholic doctrine:

But these are not solely Roman Catholic doctrine. Point to the Eastern Orthodox Church: the Mass is not a dividing issue and they pretty much accept most everything on Mary.

 

[Mad_Amos]

It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ when we celebrate the Eucharist at Mass - it is a re-presentation of the same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary

Quite true. A little knowledge of “spiritual physics” is required here.

Our limited human intellects have difficulty in fully grasping the eternal, and so we tend to express such things within an easily understood temporal framework. God, however, exists beyond what physicists refer to as “spacetime”, for He is its Lord and Master.

Although the man Christ Jesus was born “in the fullness of time” and died on a physical cross, the metaphysical dimension of His Sacrifice occurs in eternity. Through the merits of a death He had yet to endure, Christ was able to forgive sins during His ministry. Had His Most Sorrowful Passion been subject to the bonds of time, the absolution given by Our Lord while He walked the earth would have been contingent upon His future execution. It is this very same paradoxical quality of salvation that provided for Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception.

So it is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is no mere “recreation”, no theatrical re-enactment, but rather a mystical participation, out of time, in the very same Sacrifice of Calvary. Christ died but once, as the Scriptures tell us, but through the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar Catholics at all points in history have borne witness.

St. Paul said it best in 1 Corinthians 11:26 when he wrote,

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Hello all, first post!

I encountered this question on another “forum” and need a good defense.

I need help either finding something that proves her wrong, or finding a reason that her limiting this to “VERY EARLY” Christians (1st/2nd Century) is flawed.

Thanks

The links do not work. Can you repost them?

 

[Genghis]

Hello all, first post!

I encountered this question on another “forum” and need a good defense.

I need help either finding something that proves her wrong, or finding a reason that her limiting this to “VERY EARLY” Christians (1st/2nd Century) is flawed.

Thanks

Why can’t I edit my first post!?
Re-posted with working links

just read an answer by a Roman Catholic, who wrote …?

"The more “well read” one is the more the chance they will be a Catholic Christian. Cardinal Newman (a convert from Protestantism) said “to be deep in history, is to cease being Protestant.” "

I believe the opposite is true. Roman Catholics, please take your time and read these late first century/early second century sources and tell me where ANY of them write about Mariology, transsubstantiation, or any other solely Roman Catholic doctrine:

1. The Epistle of Clement of Rome, written between 95 and 96 CE: earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

1. An Epistle from Ignatius to Polycarp, written some time prior to Ignatius’ martyrdom in 117 CE: earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html

1. An Epistle from Polycarp to the Philippians, written some time between 120 and 140 CE: earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html

1. The only existing fragments of writings from Papias, a disciple of the Apostle John himself (various early dates): earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

If you believe I’ve left out any late first century/early second century sources, please provide a link and explain how it teaches purely Roman Catholic doctrine.

I’m not trying to incite hatred – but I AM interested in setting the record straight. If a person has actually read the VERY EARLY Church writers, he or she will see that there is NO MENTION of any doctrine even remotely resembling Catholic doctrine.

 

[Godfollower]

I had to laugh at this question, especially at the Protestant poster’s claim that the First Epistle of Clement had no Catholic doctrines. The ENTIRE EPISTLE is an example of Catholic doctrine: it’s a command from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth to shape up as Christians – thus demonstrating the primacy of the Church at Rome.

1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.

---

1Clem 62:3
And we have put you in mind of these things the more gladly, since we knew well that we were writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted and have diligently searched into the oracles of the teaching of God.
1Clem 63:1
Therefore it is right for us to give heed to so great and so many examples and to submit the neck and occupying the place of obedience to take our side with them that are the leaders of our souls, that ceasing from this foolish dissension we may attain unto the goal which lieth before us in truthfulness, keeping aloof from every fault.
1Clem 63:2
For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience
unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out
the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty
which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.
1Clem 63:3
And we have also sent faithful and prudent men that have walked among us from youth unto old age unblamably, who shall also be witnesses between you and us.
1Clem 63:4
And this we have done that ye might know that we have had, and still have, every solicitude that ye should be speedily at peace.
1Clem 64:1
Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is called after His
excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity and soberness, that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.
1Clem 65:1
Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with joy, to the end that they may the more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed for and earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more speedily rejoice over your good order.
1Clem 65:2
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in
all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hello all, first post!

I encountered this question on another “forum” and need a good defense.

I need help either finding something that proves her wrong, or finding a reason that her limiting this to “VERY EARLY” Christians (1st/2nd Century) is flawed.

Thanks

First remember that the Church Fathers are not writing Catechisms or theological papers or in many cases not even Biblical commentary. They are personal letters to Christian communities about usually specific issues troubling that community. they reflect the beliefs and practices of the early Christians of their day.

Another problem is she lists only 2 of 7 letters from Ignatius for instance. You should also include the Didache, The Letter to Diognetus, Justin, Irenaeus, Polycarp also has other letters.