Why would Protestants quote the Church Fathers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Integritus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Integritus

Guest
Since now some corners of Protestant leadership and even few (though very small) of Evangelicalism are now appealing to the writings of the Church Fathers, in a much more mainstream fashion, I think for a second.

I always find it so puzzling, maybe hypocritical, just so bizarre that Protestants will quote the Church Fathers, especially when in serious debates against Catholics, when in fact all the Church Fathers themselves were Catholics.

The Church Fathers talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist, a hierarchical priesthood with Rome as primacy, Sacraments, Marian theology and devotion, oral Holy Tradition, many even saying “the Catholic Church” as possessing the truth, etc. etc. Yet Protestants will never bring up those extensive quotes, sometimes entire chapters or letters - if they have rejected all of some of these Catholic beliefs. Do they really think the Catholic Church itself would declare someone other than a Catholic believer to be included as a “Church Father”? It’s not like Protestants decided who were Church Fathers.

As Catholics, we should remind our fellow Protestant separated brethren that not to quote briefly here or there of the Church Fathers so as not to take their beliefs out of context, so that they therefore may see the catholicity within their entire works - just as if approaching the Bible.
 
Integritus said:
Since now some corners of Protestant leadership and even few (though very small) of Evangelicalism are now appealing to the writings of the Church Fathers, in a much more mainstream fashion, I think for a second.

I always find it so puzzling, maybe hypocritical, just so bizarre that Protestants will quote the Church Fathers, especially when in serious debates against Catholics, when in fact all the Church Fathers themselves were Catholics.

The Church Fathers talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist, a hierarchical priesthood with Rome as primacy, Sacraments, Marian theology and devotion, oral Holy Tradition, many even saying “the Catholic Church” as possessing the truth, etc. etc. Yet Protestants will never bring up those extensive quotes, sometimes entire chapters or letters - if they have rejected all of some of these Catholic beliefs. Do they really think the Catholic Church itself would declare someone other than a Catholic believer to be included as a “Church Father”? It’s not like Protestants decided who were Church Fathers.

As Catholics, we should remind our fellow Protestant separated brethren that not to quote briefly here or there of the Church Fathers so as not to take their beliefs out of context, so that they therefore may see the catholicity within their entire works - just as if approaching the Bible.
Click to expand...
Many Church Fathers stated things that were their own opinion also and not specifically the teaching of the Church since the Church had no teaching on this or that matter at that particular time. Later the Church did through a Council or the Magisterium speak on that topic and it was not exactly what the Fathers said. Many times Protestants will try and use these quotes hoping that most people will jsut see the name attached and not realize that not everything the Fathers wrote is Church teaching.
 
Integritus said:
Since now some corners of Protestant leadership and even few (though very small) of Evangelicalism are now appealing to the writings of the Church Fathers, in a much more mainstream fashion, I think for a second.

I always find it so puzzling, maybe hypocritical, just so bizarre that Protestants will quote the Church Fathers, especially when in serious debates against Catholics, when in fact all the Church Fathers themselves were Catholics.
Click to expand...
Well, it may be the point of some Protestant debaters that what was “Catholic” in the first five centuries A.D. contradicts or calls into question beliefs considered “Catholic” in the 21st century. Such an argument might or might not hold water, but a person who advanced it wouldn’t be “hypocritical” in doing so. Quoting the ECFs might also be a way of asserting that the Catholic Church doesn’t hold sole intellectual ownership on them–again, a debatable sentiment, but not an incoherent or self-defeating one.

Me, I’m glad that more Protestants are discovering them.
 
Le_Cracquere said:
Me, I’m glad that more Protestants are discovering them.
Click to expand...
Oh trust me, I couldn’t agree with you more. But not when they discover them and continue (even more vociferous sometimes) believing their pre-conceived notions of historical Christianity.

For example, I’m happy when atheists discover Plato and Socrates, but not if they afterwards still believe even moreso they should continue as non-believers of the Good supernatural.
 
Wasn’t it this way from the beginning of Protestantism? Didn’t Calvin go back to the basics to re-create Christianity? Didn’t he go back to the Greek and Hebrew in the Bible, and go back to the writings of the Church Fathers?

He read them outside the oral tradition of the Church, and came to a different conclusion of what Christianity should be.

The Fathers wrote a lot of things, covered a wide range of theology, so I guess you could quote them for about any belief you are trying to prove. But when you read them in light of sacred tradition, you would see them as supporting the Catholic world view.
 
Catholics don’t have the market on the Church fathers, the spilt happen only 400 yrs ago…that’s not very long when you consider 2 thousand yrs. It makes perfect sense that they quote them. I grew up Protestant, knowing about the Church fathers, it’s nothing new. The Church fathers are just as important to the mainstream Protestants as they are for Catholics. We don’t own the Church fathers.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
As usual they have it partially right. The Fathers are Catholic Christians.
Click to expand...
When did they finally say ok we are Catholics? I thought they were not even calling themselves Christains let alone Catholics at that time. I’m asking a serious question.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
As usual they have it partially right. The Fathers are Catholic Christians.
Click to expand...
Mm. I’m not sure it follows from that premise alone that anything the ECFs said can only be put at the service of the present-day Catholic church.

Granted: during the early centuries of Christendom, there was no other kind of Christian to be but Catholic. Moses and David indisputably practiced what we’d call Judaism, but if a Jewish apologist invoked that fact as a logical justification for modern Judaism, and further used it to mean that only a rabbi has the standing to invoke the Pentateuch and the Psalms in debate, you’d rightly find something lacking in his argument.
 
during the ecumenical councils, here read

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which by the grace of God and the will of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine and Irene, his mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nice, the illustrious metropolis of Bithynia, in the holy church of God which is named Sophia, having followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, hath defined as follows: Christ our Lord, who hath bestowed upon us the light of the knowledge of himself, and hath redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous madness, having espoused to himself the Holy Catholic Church without spot or defect, promised that he would so preserve her: and gave his word to this effect to his holy disciples when he said: “Lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,” which promise he made, not only to them, but to us also who should believe in his name through their word. But some, not considering of this gift, and having become fickle through the temptation of the wily enemy, have fallen from the right faith; for, withdrawing from the traditions of the Catholic Church, they have erred from the truth and as the proverb saith: “The husbandmen have gone astray in their own husbandry and have gathered in their hands nothingness,” because certain priests, priests in name only, not in fact, had dared to speak against the God-approved ornament of the sacred monuments, of whom God cries aloud through the prophet, “Many pastors have corrupted my vineyard, they have polluted my portion.”

you need to be catholic to own the church fathers
anamchara said:
When did they finally say ok we are Catholics? I thought they were not even calling themselves Christains let alone Catholics at that time. I’m asking a serious question.
Click to expand...
 
Their are 100’s and 100’s of examples!
of the “ECF’s opinions” that show they are a far far cry from what Rome teaches now. Especially pre 311 a.d. This happens to be a favorite study of this fundy:D … as you guys call me, and looking at the ECF’s** I see** way way way less than the illusion (my opinion) that is sold round here.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Their are 100’s and 100’s of examples!
of the “ECF’s opinions” that show they are a far far cry from what Rome teaches now. Especially pre 311 a.d. This happens to be a favorite study of this fundy:D … as you guys call me, and looking at the ECF’s** I see** way way way less than the illusion (my opinion) that is sold round here.
Click to expand...
I would love to see some of these ECF quotes that are a far cry from what Rome teaches now. I am assuming, then, that a hierarchical church, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, all of which are found in the pre- 311 A.D church, characterize the church you belong to.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Protestants read the ECFs in a vain attempt to find an apostolic pedigree for their own churches.

God Bless,
Michael
 
marlo said:
during the ecumenical councils, here read

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which by the grace of God and the will of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine and Irene, his mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nice, the illustrious metropolis of Bithynia, in the holy church of God which is named Sophia, having followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, hath defined as follows: Christ our Lord, who hath bestowed upon us the light of the knowledge of himself, and hath redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous madness, having espoused to himself the Holy Catholic Church without spot or defect, promised that he would so preserve her: and gave his word to this effect to his holy disciples when he said: “Lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,” which promise he made, not only to them, but to us also who should believe in his name through their word. But some, not considering of this gift, and having become fickle through the temptation of the wily enemy, have fallen from the right faith; for, withdrawing from the traditions of the Catholic Church, they have erred from the truth and as the proverb saith: “The husbandmen have gone astray in their own husbandry and have gathered in their hands nothingness,” because certain priests, priests in name only, not in fact, had dared to speak against the God-approved ornament of the sacred monuments, of whom God cries aloud through the prophet, “Many pastors have corrupted my vineyard, they have polluted my portion.”

you need to be catholic to own the church fathers
Click to expand...
Thank you my firend, but no on "own’s the Church fathers that’s ridiculous. Also, can you please give me the reference to this? I see no date. We are talking about the Church fathers? Maybe I should ask who you think the Chuch fathers were? Lots of quesitons 🙂
 
mikeledes said:
I would love to see some of these ECF quotes that are a far cry from what Rome teaches now. I am assuming, then, that a hierarchical church, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, all of which are found in the pre- 311 A.D church, characterize the church you belong to.

God Bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
Michael,
Give me a topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top