I
Ignatius
Guest
Does this help?
- Status
M
Mystophilus
Guest
There is one which works extremely well for the Greek Fathers, at least: they were reading the Scriptures in their own language, not in translation.
Since the C1st and early C2nd Roman church was also a Greek-language church (q.v. their funerary inscriptions), it also works pretty well there.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
This argument only holds value if the audience presumes the unity of the early Church (not to mention the even more vexed question of who is the true heir to that early Church). Since Protestants generally do not presume that unity, and occasionally claim that their own particularly denomination is the true heir to the early Church, it is not often useful when talking with them.
Actually, you can get KJVs with more: I have one with 78 books.
This is not accurate. There was no fixed canon in the West in the early centuries, and lists of Scripture varied quite a bit, but Latin readers did have a Bible, in the Uetus Latina. Meanwhile, Greek readers used the Septuagint, and copies of the Greek NT Scriptures. As for single compilations, both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus predate 382.
In other words, we had several Bibles before the Latin church codified its own list.
X
Xpiatio
Guest
For those of you who are curious how this tune goes, I ended up looking it up since I didn’t know. youtube.com/watch?v=74yMon1c82E
S
steve_b
Guest
Re: Protestants
take a look through the names considered The Great Heresies of history. Since we know when and by whom every one of those heresies and divisions began, we know already by definition, none of THEM on the list are heirs of the early Church.
Here’s the true Church that goes back to the beginning #34
M:
I think it’s safe to say, you know what I mean and meant by my comment.
M:
No fixed canon, no official bible.
BTW, in the early years there was no East / West division in the Church.
Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, all agree to the canon defined by Pope Damasus #208
M:
Before 382, there was no difinitive canon of scriptural books.
When there is no difinitive list of books, there is no difinitive bible.
Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were from the 4th century, as was Pope Damasus I, and the council of Rome, when he defined and listed the books by name, making that canon the official canon ( i.e. the official bible) for the Catholic Church. Before that, no official canon was in place. The canon from the council of Rome is the same canon we have today.
As an aside,
here’s a comment and question asked to EWTN, answered by a well known Catholic historian
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=333856
M:
There was no difinitive bible till pope Damasus defined the canon we have today. #208
BTW, The pope is over the entire Church.
S
SteveQ
Guest
If you can’t trust the words of those who were taught directly by Jesus and/or his apostles and disciples (ie, the Church Fathers), how can you trust those who learned their faith 2,000 years later?
There were 12 apostles, yet only two of them wrote Gospels accepted into the canon (Matthew and John). Until the printing press and moveable type were combined in 1450AD to make the mass printing of bibles possible, only some churches and the very wealthy could afford to own hand-written copies (which, incidentally, were scribed by Catholic monks). For 1,500 years, Christians didn’t have bibles to study, and yet the faith flourished.
There were 12 apostles, yet only two of them wrote Gospels accepted into the canon (Matthew and John). Until the printing press and moveable type were combined in 1450AD to make the mass printing of bibles possible, only some churches and the very wealthy could afford to own hand-written copies (which, incidentally, were scribed by Catholic monks). For 1,500 years, Christians didn’t have bibles to study, and yet the faith flourished.
Hi Steve. Welcome to CAF.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Faith flourished because of word and sacrament. Whether or not one reads the word oneself, or hears the word, faith flourishes.
Jon
T
TxGodfollower
Guest
Vaticanus lacks Revelation and some of Paul’s epistles. Sinaiticus includes some books that even the Catholic Church believes to be non-canon.
Also, there is a manuscript that agrees with the Byzantine side of manuscripts more than Vaticanus that predates both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
D
DongusEddy
Guest
Sorry, but not all or many of us pass on the early church fathers; Peter was one, no?
I’m an evangelical Christian and have recently read “Against Heresies” by Saint Irenaeus of Lyons and “The Early Church: from Ignatius to Augustine,” by George Hodges, am reading the “Didache,” as well as “The Seven Ecumenical Councils,” by Henry Percival, and have recently turned to reading the Apocrypha.
I also have some of the works of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on my bookshelf. So some (many I suppose) trust and study the early church fathers and other early church literature.
While I may diverge from the Roman Catholic Church on doctrinal matters, we are after all different branches of the same root.
Now if you wanted to discuss the authority of the church and the path to salvation, I am sure we could have a rousing discussion.
I wonder how many Catholics have read Calvin, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, C.S. Lewis, or (gasp!) John Piper or John MacArthur.
I’m an evangelical Christian and have recently read “Against Heresies” by Saint Irenaeus of Lyons and “The Early Church: from Ignatius to Augustine,” by George Hodges, am reading the “Didache,” as well as “The Seven Ecumenical Councils,” by Henry Percival, and have recently turned to reading the Apocrypha.
I also have some of the works of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on my bookshelf. So some (many I suppose) trust and study the early church fathers and other early church literature.
While I may diverge from the Roman Catholic Church on doctrinal matters, we are after all different branches of the same root.
Now if you wanted to discuss the authority of the church and the path to salvation, I am sure we could have a rousing discussion.
I wonder how many Catholics have read Calvin, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, C.S. Lewis, or (gasp!) John Piper or John MacArthur.
S
steve_b
Guest
And what are you finding so far, in your reading?
D:
Catholics on this forum quote from the ECF’s routinely
D:
Just thinking outloud,
because Jesus wanted absolute perfect unity in what HE established. John 17:20-23
and
Diverge = to move or extend in different directions from a common point : draw apart
then
I would suggest, one who diverges and draws apart from one unified point, is NOT from the same root, nor in the big picture, is it following Our Lord’s request…
as a visual example, speaking of something with roots and very old growth, remaining one, and only growing true to form, is a Redwood tree. 2000+ years old, and regardless of the years and storms that assault it, it grows true to form. Not producing all kinds of wild plants and trees of different types from that root, but only one tree. #84 . BTW, that tree in the picture was already 100 years old when Mary gave birth to Jesus.
D:
True
S
steve_b
Guest
There were many old lists. The Muratorian canon for example goes back to ~180. I mention it in this quick 1st 400 year history of the Catholic Church #34
Point being there was no official bible till a complete, authoritative canon, was established. That didn’t happen till 382. That means that for almost the first 400 years of the Church, there was no official bible
D
DongusEddy
Guest
I have been reading, but study will take more time.
For one thing, I can see God’s hand in there being one universal i.e. “catholic” church. I fear that the numerous facets of Christianity–the East/West schism, the multitude of denominations, even down to the misunderstanding albeit disinterest in the faithful to know and study the Word of God is a great sin.
I diverge not from Scripture, but from fallible man’s subtractions from, additions to, and misinterpretation of Scripture.
I acknowledge Paul in that salvation is by faith alone. That Christ is sufficient as is the guidance and instruction of the Holy Spirit.
I find confirmation that all men are fallible–all men and that none does good, not even one.
But there is much more to read and to read again and to study.
Yet I find no point that convinces me of error in the theological hub of the Reformation as summarized in the Five Solas (Solae):
By Scripture Alone
By Faith Alone
By Grace Alone
Through Christ Alone
Glory to God Alone.
The more I read the more I am humbled to kneel before a loving God who desires that all be saved and who in the Son became sin itself and who bore those sins to redeem those who would believe and have faith.
I am, like Luther, captive to the Word of God. It is after all totally sufficient and “useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
Don
For one thing, I can see God’s hand in there being one universal i.e. “catholic” church. I fear that the numerous facets of Christianity–the East/West schism, the multitude of denominations, even down to the misunderstanding albeit disinterest in the faithful to know and study the Word of God is a great sin.
I diverge not from Scripture, but from fallible man’s subtractions from, additions to, and misinterpretation of Scripture.
I acknowledge Paul in that salvation is by faith alone. That Christ is sufficient as is the guidance and instruction of the Holy Spirit.
I find confirmation that all men are fallible–all men and that none does good, not even one.
But there is much more to read and to read again and to study.
Yet I find no point that convinces me of error in the theological hub of the Reformation as summarized in the Five Solas (Solae):
By Scripture Alone
By Faith Alone
By Grace Alone
Through Christ Alone
Glory to God Alone.
The more I read the more I am humbled to kneel before a loving God who desires that all be saved and who in the Son became sin itself and who bore those sins to redeem those who would believe and have faith.
I am, like Luther, captive to the Word of God. It is after all totally sufficient and “useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
Don
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Those who refuse to accept the fathers simply refuse to have the historical fact proven to themselves that the Catholic Church has no gaps between Christ finding his Church and itself existing. They are forced to say “scripture alone” if they want to believe “authority ceased” and “real Christians came back in 1517”.
“stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
The most sure way to do this is see what has been handed on, by the apostolic fathers and by the unanimous consent of later fathers who have had the faith handed to them and then them etc. Some things are taught implicitly by the apostolic fathers and put in explicit terms by the unanimous consent of later fathers. The ministerial priesthood, that is apostolic succession, as well as the Eucharist was taught by the apostolic fathers. Marys sinlessness was taught by the unanimous consent of later fathers, and implied by the apostolic father Justin martyr.
Rome’s presidency is taught by the apostolic fathers, the unanimous consent of later fathers explain why and what this means.
This is just examples. Basically whatever the case on matters of faith the Catholic Church has the correct and handed on position and the protestants do not
“stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
The most sure way to do this is see what has been handed on, by the apostolic fathers and by the unanimous consent of later fathers who have had the faith handed to them and then them etc. Some things are taught implicitly by the apostolic fathers and put in explicit terms by the unanimous consent of later fathers. The ministerial priesthood, that is apostolic succession, as well as the Eucharist was taught by the apostolic fathers. Marys sinlessness was taught by the unanimous consent of later fathers, and implied by the apostolic father Justin martyr.
Rome’s presidency is taught by the apostolic fathers, the unanimous consent of later fathers explain why and what this means.
This is just examples. Basically whatever the case on matters of faith the Catholic Church has the correct and handed on position and the protestants do not
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Many times I think the approach to the Church Fathers that Catholic apologists use is pretty shaky. Here are what I see as the three major logical problems:
- Western sources citing particular beliefs and practices are assumed to prevail throughout Christianity.
- Selective use of ad hominem. For example, when people like what Tertullian has to say, apologists claim him as an authoritative source; when they don’t like what he has to say, they point out that he was condemned as a heretic. Sainthood also comes into play in similar arguments: “Never declared a saint–don’t have to accept it”; again if what something a Father has to say runs counter to their argument. This calls into question who actually counts as a Church Father and for whom and who decides (after the fact). “These people in history agreed with me, therefore they are Church Fathers.”
- Cherrypicking the Fathers as a whole. If you wanted, you could use the Church Fathers to build all kinds of theological stances that are contrary to official Catholic Church teaching–say for example, the principle of nonresistance. To me the whole enterprise seems backwards and a little dishonest, frankly. The process begins with Church teaching and then the Church Fathers are combed for “ammunition” to support claims, somewhat similar to the way Evangelicals/Fundamentalists use the Bible. Instead of asking and thinking about what the Bible actually teaches, Evangelicals often begin with their theological suppositions and look for evidence to support it. IMO, Catholics do the same type of thing with the Church Fathers. Although certainly anecdotal, the Catholic converts that I’ve spoken to who were convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church via the “study” of the Church Fathers actually only flipped through Jergens volumes (sort of the epitome of cherrypicking) or restricted their reading to Western/Roman Empire sources. To me that’s a skewed sample if you REALLY want to learn about early Church history and thought.
S
steve_b
Guest
For clarification, Catholic and universal doesn’t mean universal as in some generic non specific understanding. It means, ONE belief ONE Church, believed by everyone everywhere.
As St Irenaeus wrote ( he was taught by those who were John’s direct disciples)
“while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world,”
Chapter 10 v 3],
“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, (the Church of Rome) on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere”.
Chapter 3, v 2-3]
D:
True It is huge sin. But the Catholic Church under the leadership of the 267th successor to St Peter (pope Francis) is here today inspite of, and regardless of, all who divided from the Catholic Church over the years.
As you might know, division / sedition./ dissension/ etc are all condemned in scripture as are those who do it.
And there is no expiration date to that condemnation. It’s as valid today as it was in the 1st century
D:
Paul never said or taught salvation is by faith alone. “Alone” is an addition by a hugely fallible man named Luther. He admits he added alone where it wasn’t in scripture.
Don’t take my word for it.
“So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.” … I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word “solum” (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul’s meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it.”
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt
See? Luther added alone, NOT Paul. Paul didn’t say alone. So you actually DO diverge from scripture in what you acknowledge by accepting Luther’s arrogant addition to scripture. And as we see his errors are still aggresively taught by protestants today.
D:
Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit is the author of all this division.
D:
You might be the first person to say that even Jesus is fallible, and He doesn’t do good
D:
Re: that list, would you do me a favor
*]show me where scripture says it is alone
*]show me where scripture teaches faith alone
D:
to finish that statement
come to the knowledge of truth
D:
which means one has to do it His way, not their way
D:
As you can see from the link above,
Luther wasn’t captive to the word. He removed 7 books from the OT, and wanted to remove James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation from the NT. Look up the statement “epistle of straw”. It came from Luther Re: the epistle of James
If you have a protestant bible, you have 66 books. IOW bible “lite”. It’s minus 7 books.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
If you look at a copy of Luther’s translation (1535) you will see that that these statements are false.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
How so? As I recall the deuterocanonical books are removed from
The Old Testament and placed afterwards in an appendix. Likewise, Luther places the four books Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation together at the end of the New Testament as an appendix. Aside from that, it is clear from his prefaces and his other writings that Luther considered none of these books to be inspired scripture.
S
steve_b
Guest
Specifics please
D:
In his early years as I understand, prior to the year 208, he was solid. After that he started to vere off the rails and after about 212 he was a heretic. For that reason I personally don’t refer to Tertullian to defend any position. When someone becomes a heretic, I take them off my list. But I’m just speaking for myself there.
D:
The Church teaches what people are to believe DE FIDE. The ECF’s are hugely important because they show a consistant timeline from the apostles as to what was taught and defended. As an aside, we might not know about teachings until challenged. Therefore, teaching(s) in reality might have been in place long before they needed defending.
D:
When we see the Church’s position today, and we want to see where that happened in history, it’s only natural to go back to Catholic Church docs & the ECF’s who are all Catholic to see when particular teachings came about.
That’s not cherry picking
Afterall. the Church Jesus established and gave all His promises to is the Catholic Church. #[34 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11997086&postcount=34)
D:
I would suggest Protestants look 1st at the condemnations in scripture that condemn division from the One and ONLY Church Jesus established. And recognize there is no justification or support for their division, nor is there an expiration date to the condemnation for division in scripture…
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. Ignatius writes the following about dicision / schism
"If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. "
Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3)
D:
Let’s make a distinction here between Church and state (empire).
- The Roman empire (the state) covered all the East AND went as far west as Hadrians wall in N England.
- The Church otoh, has no boundries East or West, North or South. The Church is to cover the world. And as far as readings you mention, all the ECF’s were Catholic.
S
steve_b
Guest
Luther took 7 OT canonical books, and made them apocrypha i.e. made them non scripture. That is subtracting from scripture.
- Status