I
IGotQuestions
Guest
Do Non Catholics Study the Early Church Writings?
What is taught about the Early Church in Non Catholic religions?
- Status
A
adf417
Guest
E
Eric_Prine
Guest
short answer: yes, some do.
As far as what is taught, it depends on the group, their agenda, and how they like to interpret things. Some of the early writings we Catholics use to show evidence that the early Church believed as we do- I’ve seen some anti-Catholics explain as evidence of when they think the early Church started to go “off-track” from what they think God intended the Church to be.
G
gazelam
Guest
Generally LDS instruction manuals do not reference writings of Early Church Fathers, although there may occasionally be an exception to bolster an idea presented in a particular lesson.
Regarding your title “What is taught about the Early Church in Non Catholic religions?”, the LDS church believes that the early church fell into a state of apostasy (i.e., a loss of divine priesthood authority, and a loss of some divine teaching) shortly after the death of the apostles. A quick example of a lost teaching would be the apostles themselves. Ephesians 4:11-13 (KJV) states:
11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
These verses state that there should be apostles on the Earth “Till we all come in the unity of faith”. Even though there has not been a unity of faith on the Earth since Jesus lived, Orthodox Christianity seems to believe that the bishops replaced the apostles. The LDS church would view this as a deviation from what Jesus intended. I hope this helps…
Lutherans do. Seminary training for our pastors is extensive. Additionally, I can remember as a child being taught about the martyrs and apostles, and later the history of the creeds and some of the early saints of the Church.
Jon
T
Tannhauser_1509
Guest
In this part of St. Paul’s letter, he’s speaking to the Ephesians about spiritual gifts, given to each of them according to the fine-tuned graces of the Lord. Thus, the passage you quoted. When the Catholic Church speaks of apostles, it means it in a few ways: first, to speak of those contemporaries of Jesus’ time who were the pioneers of the faith, the first to believe and evangelize. They were also the first bishops (St. Peter established the church at Antioch and at Rome; St. Andrew established the see at Byzantium, etc.). In a way, the bishops of the Church today could roughly be called apostles of the faith, but only by merit of their succession from the apostles’ teaching authority. Also, biblically and traditionally there has never been a twelve-man limit on the number of apostolic successors who may be present on the earth at any one time; it is especially troublesome when there is a limit and they all happen to be homegrown in America (with the exception of President Uchtdorf). If you read the canons of early ecumenical councils, they all emphasize the need to respect the jurisdiction of each bishop, because these bishops are in touch with their own people’s culture, customs and needs. All this to say, that verse was ripped out of context and given an unfounded meaning.
Also, I just can’t help but ask what you make of Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16: “I [Jesus] also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
Apostasy = crumbly rock
B
boomerang
Guest
They don’t study the Early Church Fathers. Protestants know Christianity started in 1611 when an angel floated down from heaven with a bible in his hands and gave it to King James. Before that there was only a cult of cannibals called “papists” who kept re-sacrificing Jesus over and over and eating Him.
T
Tannhauser_1509
Guest
In this part of St. Paul’s letter, he’s speaking to the Ephesians about spiritual gifts, given to each of them according to the fine-tuned graces of the Lord. Thus, the passage you quoted. When the Catholic Church speaks of apostles, it means it in a few ways: first, to speak of those contemporaries of Jesus’ time who were the pioneers of the faith, the first to believe and evangelize. They were also the first bishops (St. Peter established the church at Antioch and at Rome; St. Andrew established the see at Byzantium, etc.). In a way, the bishops of the Church today could roughly be called apostles of the faith, but only by merit of their succession from the apostles’ teaching authority. Also, biblically and traditionally there has never been a twelve-man limit on the number of apostolic successors who may be present on the earth at any one time; it is especially troublesome when there is a limit and they all happen to be homegrown in America (with the exception of President Uchtdorf). If you read the canons of early ecumenical councils, they all emphasize the need to respect the jurisdiction of each bishop, because these bishops are in touch with their own people’s culture, customs and needs. All this to say, that verse was ripped out of context and given an unfounded meaning.
Also, I just can’t help but ask what you make of Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16: “I [Jesus] also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
Apostasy = crumbly rock
I
In_His_Grace
Guest
If you are referring specifically to Protestants I suspect many haven’t but I have studied the ECF’s.
M
MaryT777
Guest
…subscribed.
G
gazelam
Guest
Here’s a quote from Francis A Sullivan, S.J. (Gregorian University in Rome) showing there are alternative viewpoints regarding apostolic succession.
“No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)
Also, regarding the criticism that most of the LDS apostles are from the US, most, if not all of the original apostles called by Jesus were Galilean. The LDS church also calls local bishops who are in touch with local customs and needs. I hope this helps…
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
This is flippant, I hope, but not far from the truth.
What I’ve noticed is that the LDS is not the only non-Catholic denomination to teach apostasy.
Most commonly I read/hear Protestants theorizing that Catholicism was invented by Constantine (or his minions or by people around the time that Christianity was legitimized and corrupted by Rome). Some seem to push this corruption earlier still so as to include the Orthodox but, of course, never prior to the end of Acts which is biblical.
The earlier the corruption, the easier it is to dispense with the early (but post Acts) Church writings.
T
Tannhauser_1509
Guest
In reply to gazelam, I’ve read Fr. Sullivan’s book on the history of the episcopacy. If you paid attention to his conclusions, though, he never said that a historical investigation will help us arrive at the conclusion that the bishops are the successors to the apostles; “history alone will not give us the answers.” He instead encourages us to partake in theological insights in order to settle the question. After all, confessing belief in the Church is a matter of faith. Fr. Sullivan defends the bishops’ role as apostolic successors in that the way in which the Christian message spread in the early history of the Church is consistent with what we find in the Acts of the Apostles; in other words, the bishops were promulgating the gospel in the same way as the apostles. Also, he realizes that a monarchical episcopacy is valuable when dealing with heretics; practically, it could not have developed any other way. And, of course, the very New Testament that some may use to combat a monarchical episcopacy was in fact compounded by a group of Catholic bishops; a rejection of their authority and guidance by the Holy Spirit is a simple rejection of the biblical canon.
And as long as written documents are necessary to prove a monarchical episcopacy, I’m confused as to where you point for evidence of a universal apostasy. Let’s also realize that Ignatius would not have written with authority had he not been confident in his role as bishop. Also, I’ll be the first to admit that the episcopacy was an evolved structure; granted, it was a well-evolved one, led by the Spirit.
And as long as written documents are necessary to prove a monarchical episcopacy, I’m confused as to where you point for evidence of a universal apostasy. Let’s also realize that Ignatius would not have written with authority had he not been confident in his role as bishop. Also, I’ll be the first to admit that the episcopacy was an evolved structure; granted, it was a well-evolved one, led by the Spirit.
T
Techno2000
Guest
T
Tommy999
Guest
Most evangelical Protestants do not study the ECFs that I know of. In fact, I’m as guilty as the next person. It was never emphasized at the churches I attended. Do you know of any good books on the subject?
I realize this is over-simplifying things and a little silly, but most folks I know fast-forward from Bible times to the Reformation with brief stops at Nicea in 325 AD for the Nicene Creed and the Bible coming into being, followed by a shout-out to St Patrick in the 400’s for his efforts in bringing Christianity to Ireland, plus a salute to St Francis of Assisi later on for being a godly man who showed the multitudes who were living in corrupt times the way back to God.
Also, throw in the Crusades from 1095-1291 and there you have it up until 1517 when the Reformation starts. All the rest of the time is usually considered unremarkable filler time with corrupt kings and rulers fighting for wealth and territory and killing other corrupt rulers in the process, plus marauding Vikings pillaging Europe in the 800’s and 900s. I realize this is a skewed point of view, but that is about all I knew growing up.
Absolute utter nonsense, and quite close to an issue of the 8th commandment.
If you are going to make such inflammatory, idiotic statements, I suggest you back it up with proof.
Your source, for example, that Lutherans (who are Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome) believe that Christianity started in 1611, or that the bible began in 1611. You won’t find one because Luther’s translation of the scripture - 74 books of it - was published in 1534.
You do the math, since it is apparent you can’t do the history.
Jon
T
theropod
Guest
Take a deep breath Jon. I think he was making a joke. I took it as a joke. I really hope it was a joke.
I hope you’re right, but Boomerang has 1400 posts. I would hope he knows how to use the emoticons by now.Take a deep breath Jon. I think he was making a joke. I took it as a joke. I really hope it was a joke.
You see, now I know it’s a joke, and my response is:They don’t study the Early Church Fathers. Protestants know Christianity started in 1611 when an angel floated down from heaven with a bible in his hands and gave it to King James. Before that there was only a cult of cannibals called “papists” who kept re-sacrificing Jesus over and over and eating Him.
Wait a minute, are you telling me God didn’t hand the Bible to King James?
I will assume that you are right, and that I owe an apology.
Jon
A
adf417
Guest
If boom had only read the post right before his he might have reconsidered his post.
Peace!!!
B
boomerang
Guest
Peace, brother. It’s a joke. :whacky:
- Status