Why would Protestants quote the Church Fathers?

[jbuck919]

A charirtable and I think fair interpretation of the situation would be that finding Christian wisdom inspired short, perhaps, of the level of scripture but enlightened and enlightening nonetheless is everybody’s property. Modern Catholic theologians are also beholden to brilliant Protestant ones such as a Karl Barth, who was not Catholic, but also not by any means useless.

 

[Redbandito]

1. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Luther taught this)

ditto

“This is my body.” Seriously, could it be any clearer?

 

[6glargento]

To get to the OP.
Because they are catholic not Roman Catholic…

MFM, if you are going to claim to be catholic in any sence of the word, then you better believe what the catholic church teaches. lets see what the ECFs say on what it means to be catholic (or universal)

*Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).*

according to ignatius being catholic is about being in communion with the bishop and having a valid consecrated eucharist neither of which are present in protestant churches.

lets here from Cyprian

Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, ]teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, [/Uyet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).

cyrprian again tells us that thoes who are not in communion with the priests and bishop are not catholic. he also says that the church was founded on peter. the word “catholic” does not mean “all who believe in jesus” it is refering to the universal church which christ founded, led by the successors of peter and his bishops.

 

[Santos]

The teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Catechism. These are the teachings all Catholics must believe. The disunity among Protestants cannot be compared to the dissent found among Catholics. Protestants cannot even agree on what salvation means. Is it predestination (Calvinist) or free will (Arminian)? Is baptism necessary for salvation (Lutheran Church, Church of Christ) or not (Baptists)? Is speaking in tongues a sign that you are saved (Pentecostal) or a sign that you are of the devil (fundamentalist Baptist)? Is it eternal security (Baptists) or not (Pentecostals)?

God Bless,
Michael

… … … … … …

Since the protestants declined to reply to this one, I will respond for them (don’t worry protestants, I got your back):

The bible alone is the only authority in matters of faith. The NKJ bible say’s that we are saved by faith alone (Rom 3:28). Through the bible alone and by faith alone, they are “all” 100% correct!, They have all received the truths of the gospel by faith, and through their own interpretations of the NKJ bible… I don’t know how that’s so hard for you catholics to see?!

Psss! And you catholics wan’t to follow one shepherd and one fold (Jn 10:16), united by one hope and one faith (Eph 4:4-5), you guys are so blind to truth!

Stepping in for my protestant brethren,
Santos

 

[Reformed1]

The teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Catechism. These are the teachings all Catholics must believe. The disunity among Protestants cannot be compared to the dissent found among Catholics. Protestants cannot even agree on what salvation means. Is it predestination (Calvinist) or free will (Arminian)? Is baptism necessary for salvation (Lutheran Church, Church of Christ) or not (Baptists)? Is speaking in tongues a sign that you are saved (Pentecostal) or a sign that you are of the devil (fundamentalist Baptist)? Is it eternal security (Baptists) or not (Pentecostals)?

God Bless,
Michael

But you guys apparently can’t all read the catechism and come to the same conclusion. Iguess you as an fallible, fallen human still can’t accurately interpret infallible decrees whether they are found in scripture or in your catechism.

As far as predestination goes, has your church ever decided exactly how it works? Are the Mollinists correct or maybe the Thomists? How about some vague, ambiguous middle ground?

What of your charismatics?

See, you don’t want to admit it, but you guys have quite an issue with unity as well.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

But you guys apparently can’t all read the catechism and come to the same conclusion. Iguess you as an fallible, fallen human still can’t accurately interpret infallible decrees whether they are found in scripture or in your catechism.

As far as predestination goes, has your church ever decided exactly how it works? Are the Mollinists correct or maybe the Thomists? How about some vague, ambiguous middle ground?

What of your charismatics?

See, you don’t want to admit it, but you guys have quite an issue with unity as well.

Different ways of expressing the one Catholic Faith, is not the same as expressing different Catholic faiths.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You ignored my real question, and you ducked it because you do not have an adequate response.

Some of your “sola scriptura, sola fide” brethren hold one or more of these doctrines, and I never even mentioned infant baptism, OSAS and many other doctrines.

Why, Marty, are there so many doctrinal differences among those who are “all” disciples of the same teacher?

Is He really THAT unclear? Or are some having difficulty hearing from Him clearly?

How can two men of God using the Bible Alone as their “sole infallible rule of faith” come to such contradictory positions on all these doctrines? After all, each of them seeks to follow the advice of Paul who tell us to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15)

Are some “wrongly dividing” that Word?

Seriously Randy are you saying all Catholics are in complete unity pffff. Christs’ word is never contradictory… it is the ability to interpret that is and that includes your church.
It’s an old argument and has nothing to do with the ECF’s.

 

[runandsew]

But you guys apparently can’t all read the catechism and come to the same conclusion. Iguess you as an fallible, fallen human still can’t accurately interpret infallible decrees whether they are found in scripture or in your catechism.

As far as predestination goes, has your church ever decided exactly how it works? Are the Mollinists correct or maybe the Thomists? How about some vague, ambiguous middle ground?

What of your charismatics?

See, you don’t want to admit it, but you guys have quite an issue with unity as well.

We have the Magisterium, which teaches infallibly, not the individual sitting in the pew Joe Catholic.
The Magisterium is not something that existed 2000 years ago and we can only guess what they meant, It is present here and now today, continuing it teaching authority given to it by God himself, that has put down all the heresies which have arisen in the Church since the Church was established by Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Seriously Randy are you saying all Catholics are in complete unity pffff. Christs’ word is never contradictory… it is the ability to interpret that is and that includes your church. It’s an old argument and has nothing to do with the ECF’s.

Complete unity among individual Catholics? No. Individuals have different levels of knowledge about what the Church teaches and varying degrees of understanding of what is taught. The Church herself is clear and unified on the doctrine she has defined. Most active, practicing Catholics know what the defined dogmas are and agree upon them. We’re not arguing about infant baptism, that’s for sure.

Let’s review:

• I said that Protestantism has no direct link to Jesus.
• You asked if we had ever heard of the Holy Spirit.
• I asked which of the Reformers were discipled personally by Jesus.
• You claimed that “most” of your born-again brothers are led by the Holy Spirit.
• I then laid out a bunch of doctrines taught by the original Reformers or disputed among “born again Bible Christians” today holding contradictory positions.
• You ducked the question.
• I asked again with more examples of Protestant confusion and disagreement.
• You responded above.
  Now, stop trying to throw this back on me and answer my question:

Why are there so many doctrinal differences among those who are “all” disciples of the same teacher?

 

[Integritus]

Complete unity among individual Catholics? No. Individuals have different levels of knowledge about what the Church teaches and varying degrees of understanding of what is taught. The Church herself is clear and unified on the doctrine she has defined. Most active, practicing Catholics know what the defined dogmas are and agree upon them. We’re not arguing about infant baptism, that’s for sure.

Let’s review:

• I said that Protestantism has no direct link to Jesus.
• You asked if we had ever heard of the Holy Spirit.
• I asked which of the Reformers were discipled personally by Jesus.
• You claimed that “most” of your born-again brothers are led by the Holy Spirit.
• I then laid out a bunch of doctrines taught by the original Reformers or disputed among “born again Bible Christians” today holding contradictory positions.
• You ducked the question.
• I asked again with more examples of Protestant confusion and disagreement.
• You responded above.
  Now, stop trying to throw this back on me and answer my question:

Why are there so many doctrinal differences among those who are “all” disciples of the same teacher?

Randy,

Perhaps I can continue the dialogue with you since your counterpart has disappeared. I think your question is answered quite concretely through the philosophical and natural argumentation by these theologians. It rang like loud church bells of truth in my ear when I read this.

Hans Urs von Balthaser: “The only unifying factor among them is the denial of papal primacy. The negation created a purely formal unity, but this unity, deriving from negation -within every non-Catholic church as well as between them - remains abstract in consent, because the most concrete factor of unity has been eliminated.”

Ignatz Döllinger quoting a prominent German Protestant theologian [regarding the nature of Protestant churches]: “It is untrue and confusing to speak of unity when this is merely sought after, existing only as a concept, and when nothing can be presented that shows the alleged unity numerically.”

Johann Adam Möhler says in his Die Einheit in der Kirche: "To call the external manifestation of internal unity the “empirical concept” of the Church, which must be replaced by the “ideal”, means to put an abstraction, an empty concept, death, in the place of life. [In other words, non-Catholics would rather have the “invisible abstract” church(es), possessing the mark of disunity, replace the “visible concrete” Church, which possesses unity.]

The once-Anglican bishop John Henry Newman complained that “the (then) existing unity of the English church was abstract; in truth one should speak about ‘churches’.”

Funny that I quoted several Germans and one Englishman to make the point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

Perhaps I can continue the dialogue with you since your counterpart has disappeared. I think your question is answered quite concretely through the philosophical and natural argumentation by these theologians. It rang like loud church bells of truth in my ear when I read this.

Hans Urs von Balthaser: “The only unifying factor among them is the denial of papal primacy. The negation created a purely formal unity, but this unity, deriving from negation -within every non-Catholic church as well as between them - remains abstract in consent, because the most concrete factor of unity has been eliminated.”

Ignatz Döllinger quoting a prominent German Protestant theologian [regarding the nature of Protestant churches]: “It is untrue and confusing to speak of unity when this is merely sought after, existing only as a concept, and when nothing can be presented that shows the alleged unity numerically.”

Johann Adam Möhler says in his Die Einheit in der Kirche: "To call the external manifestation of internal unity the “empirical concept” of the Church, which must be replaced by the “ideal”, means to put an abstraction, an empty concept, death, in the place of life. [In other words, non-Catholics would rather have the “invisible abstract” church(es), possessing the mark of disunity, replace the “visible concrete” Church, which possesses unity.]

The once-Anglican bishop John Henry Newman complained that “the (then) existing unity of the English church was abstract; in truth one should speak about ‘churches’.”

Funny that I quoted several Germans and one Englishman to make the point.

These quotes go in my file!

Thanks.

 

[AndrewA]

This is a very interesting question… I’m still having a hard enough time explaining to the few protestants that I know that their religion came AFTER catholisism.

 

[Alexius]

We may not “own” them, but they were Catholic!

If by “Catholic,” you mean the undivided Catholic Church (now the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church, then I agree !

Such as St Ignatius of Antioch?

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

The Church Fathers begin after/towards the end of the apostles and end with St. John Damascene of the eighth century…
Correct, no one “owns” the Fathers, but their doctrines and identities are that of Catholics…

What Protestants do this? Why wouldn’t they want to just read them because it’s part of thier history as well? Should they stay clear of anything the Catholic church claims is “owned” by them? Does this include all the beautiful art work and stain class windows of the past?

That’s the problem…I was never directed to them. They were not part of Protestant theological history (exceptions noted), but among the saints and “good teachers” of the Church.

Most of my Born again Christian brothers.

What does it mean to be born-again?

 

[Alexius]

We may not “own” them, but they were Catholic!

If by “Catholic,” you mean the undivided Catholic Church (now the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church, then I agree !

Such as St Ignatius of Antioch?

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

The Church Fathers begin after/towards the end of the apostles and end with St. John Damascene of the eighth century…
Correct, no one “owns” the Fathers, but their doctrines and identities are that of Catholics…

What Protestants do this? Why wouldn’t they want to just read them because it’s part of thier history as well? Should they stay clear of anything the Catholic church claims is “owned” by them? Does this include all the beautiful art work and stain class windows of the past?

That’s the problem…I was never directed to them. They were not part of Protestant theological history (exceptions noted), but among the saints and “good teachers” of the Church.

Most of my Born again Christian brothers.

What does it mean to be born-again?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[sinningcatholic]

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.

Martin Luther was a Jesuit priest with a case of ‘scrupples.’ He never left Confession without feeling like the inevitability of sin is constant, therefore he was already “in sin” despite absolution. This is where the Protestant notion of ‘salvation on faith alone’ vs. faith and works. AND DID YOU KNOW–Father Martin Luther wrote much, but later recanted and was a practicing Catholic at death? However the erroneous writings were already easier than practicing Catholicism==hence 1001 new religions have branched off. maureen

 

[Apocalypse]

AND DID YOU KNOW–Father Martin Luther wrote much, but later recanted and was a practicing Catholic at death?

Maureen, Great information! Where can I reference this fact, so that I can share it with my Lutheran friends? This is the first time I ever heard that… but I’m not surprised! Martin converted back to Catholicism Cool! That made me want to change my user name to myfavoritmartin, but apparently someone has already taken it

 

[SolaScriptura]

The reasons I quote the church fathers

1. 
   *]They are our fathers too. Some how the modern day Roman Catholics seem to think Protestants don’t care for or despise the fathers. That is not true. They are our fathers in the faith. We learn from their wisdom and value the dedication to our Lord. We just don’t try to put them writings on par with the written Word of God. As a matter of fact they will often tell you to never do that very thing.
   *]Show the inconsistent of your own position. The tradition of the fathers are supposed to be part of your rule faith. Therefore, I will cite the fathers to demonstrate you often neglect them and pick & choose amongst them. Also I will cite them to show they are not on par with Scripture and they acknowledge that fact… Finally, they did not believe everything the modern day Roman Catholic Church believed therefore you cannot accurately call them Roman Catholics.
   
   Those are the 2 major reasons off the top of my head.

 

[sinningcatholic]

Maureen, Great information! Where can I reference this fact, so that I can share it with my Lutheran friends? This is the first time I ever heard that… but I’m not surprised! Martin converted back to Catholicism Cool! That made me want to change my user name to myfavoritmartin, but apparently someone has already taken it

I have looked and found he was either an Augustinian or Franciscan Monk, not a Jesuit. It was the Jesuit Order that most fiercely defended the primary Catholic faith.

When ML was writing, WOW–talk about conflicting information there…anyway, it is written that he wanted to REFORM what he considered wrongs in the Church–not dismantle the Church. He was called ‘crazy’ mentally ill’ , ‘alcoholic’, ‘sexually unmanageable’, wild womanizer–but all that is written by angry, frustrated Catholics. Then you have the Protestant (protesters) version that wanted more laxity in the Church rule, and revision of some practices they considered wrong. You can see for yourself how messy this really is and how NO definitive response is provided. Too polarized. Google “Martin Luther Catholic Monk” and just start reading. He WAS excommunicated as an heretic, but burned the paper when received. He did marry later in life, but today there are in place steps to release priests from vows should Holy Orders have been wrongly granted, based on an immature understanding. let me know what you think.

you GO–girl!! maureen