catholic answers forum BANNED

pablope · #77 Apr 4, '13, 6:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BA11

I think reading the church fathers is very useful and interesting and think all christians would benefit from seeing the incredibly strong faith of our ancestors. I don't consider them dogmatic or divine in any way and have to disagree with them when their words don't match scripture however.

.

Bu then this begs the question...according to who's interpretation?

ECFs where also those who started sifting through the early church writings...and formed the basis of the NT canon.....so how could their writings not match Scripture?

allhers · #78 Apr 4, '13, 6:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by aidanbradypop

When we read on the Early Church Fathers and their writings, we can see where they stood on matters such as the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the RP in the Eucharist.

How much do the Early Church Fathers play a part in your faith or denomination?

Does your faith value their teachings?

Have you ever really heard much about them? (I was surprised when I found out many people know nothing about them)

I saw this today on Our Sunday Visitor and thought I'd share it:
The Fathers of the Church Bible: Bringing together Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in one volume!
Each topic features the wisdom of one or more of the Church fathers including St. Augustine, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, and more
https://catalog.osv.com/Catalog.aspx...ductCode=T1307

aidanbradypop · #79 Apr 5, '13, 4:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

You hit the nail to the top. He is not different from the ECFs. Also his teachings have to be tested, and he is not infallible or any absolute authority. According to his own words he is just a future stinking sack of worms.

Maybe we could move a bit forward in this discussion, if you defined, who you consider as actual ECFs : Ignatios, Polycarp, Justin the Martyr or the later ones (Teretullian, Cyprian) or even the fourth century fathers (Augustinus, Jerome).

My argument is that among the second century ECFs we find writers with whom Protestants feel quite cosy, with the later ones we start to sniff popery, although we can agree with some aspects of Augustinus (Calvinists more than Lutherans).

Each ECF was allowed to express his opinion just like two priest or bishops today may have a different view on a certain issue. Luckily, we have doctrines already defined today. Back then, they were trying to figure all this stuff out. For the 1st and 2nd century Fathers, we see great wisdom in their writing and homilies. Just like Luther, the ECFs were not infallible unless one was a Pope and then infalliblity would come into play. I agree that their teachings should be tested and the Church has throughout the centuries. I am not really for or against any of the Fathers when it comes to what century they lived in. I believe each Father was a product of his time and went on the knowledge he had.

Christ even said the He did not reveal everything to the Apostles. So with time, we slowly see these things come to light. Our understanding becomes greater and allows us to grasp the concepts better. The Holy Trinity, not mentioned directly in Sacred Scripture, gains form as you progress from Father to Father.

Please understand that unless a Church Father was a Pope, they were not infallible. You keep saying that and I want to stress that is not a Church Teaching. Each one did have authority just as Lutherans give Luther.

Attejohannes · #80 Apr 5, '13, 10:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by aidanbradypop

Each ECF was allowed to express his opinion just like two priest or bishops today may have a different view on a certain issue. Luckily, we have doctrines already defined today. Back then, they were trying to figure all this stuff out. For the 1st and 2nd century Fathers, we see great wisdom in their writing and homilies. Just like Luther, the ECFs were not infallible unless one was a Pope and then infalliblity would come into play. I agree that their teachings should be tested and the Church has throughout the centuries. I am not really for or against any of the Fathers when it comes to what century they lived in. I believe each Father was a product of his time and went on the knowledge he had.

Christ even said the He did not reveal everything to the Apostles. So with time, we slowly see these things come to light. Our understanding becomes greater and allows us to grasp the concepts better. The Holy Trinity, not mentioned directly in Sacred Scripture, gains form as you progress from Father to Father.

Please understand that unless a Church Father was a Pope, they were not infallible. You keep saying that and I want to stress that is not a Church Teaching. Each one did have authority just as Lutherans give Luther.

This is one point of difficulty for me, sincethe Catholic Church on the other hand strongly claims that the deposit of apostolic faith was complete during the apostolic age, and no new doctrines could be introduced after the last apostle passed away.

On the other hand it is claimed that novel truths were revealed (or at least a more complete understanding of the apostolic heritage was developed) during the centuries that followed the apostolic age.

Nicea325 · #81 Apr 5, '13, 11:52 am

Attejohannes:

Quote:

The post- apostolic fathers I am familiar with (Ignatios, Polycarp) are inspiring to read as a testimony of Faith, but they do not teach anything that is not already contained in the actual apostolic writings of the New Testament. Never do they refer any oral apostolic tradition that somehow would complement the New Testament or to add something to it.

Really? Show one verse explaining the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? No Apostolic Tradition? Show me one verse mentioning canonization of the OT & NT?

Quote:

You do not find expressions like, "as I was taught by St John" or " St Peter was of that opinion", but only discernible Scriptural references.

Exactly! Because words are oral teachings written down. Written words are always taught and mentioned orally first,not vice vera.

Quote:

Didache is an interesting document describing the Church practices in the second century, but for example the Eucharistic service described there would be considered as highly irregular by any traditional Catholic/ Orthodox to day, and as rather similar to the " breaking of bread" of some non denominational evangelicals.

No. Developments are not considered irregular. Irregular would fall more on the lines of introducing unorthodox teachings.

Quote:

Being a formal successor of an apostle was in itself not a guarantee of correct teaching, as the wide acceptance of Arianism in East and West by impeccably ordained hierarchy demonstrates.

Then according to you Jesus' only promised the Holy Spirit to the 12 and after their deaths it ceased to exist? Then tell me, if there is no guarantee of correct teaching, then what certitude do we have doctrines such as the Trinity ratified in 325 AD is truly accurate?

Quote:

St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius are great thinkers, but all their knowledge of apostolic teaching was second hand, and therefore for example St. Augustine' s teaching on predestination is just his teaching, and does not have apostolic authority.

Second hand? And all the OT writers after Abraham over the years also were second hand thinkers over the centuries. Should we discredit them too? St. Augustine as any other is entitled to his or her theological views and speculations, that in itself does not discredit his staunch defense of Apostolic Authority an teachings.

Quote:

Even less do the fifth century doctrines on Purgatory or the Assumption of the Virgin ( never mentioned by NT or the post- apostolic fathers) have any apostolic weight.

False! When were doctrines such as the Trinity,Hypostatic Union and Incarnation made official? In the 4th and 5th centuries...do they lack apostolic weight? When did Jesus remotely teach all Truths would cease at a specific point in time? God is Eternal,hence we are confined to space,matter and time...big difference.

Quote:

The authority we have is in the Scriptures as the earliest testimony of Apostolic Faith, and any teaching and any doctrine and any tradition has to be measured against that standard. That is the correct meaning of the "sola Scriptura" principle.

Chapter and verse where Scripture is the ONLY place where authority is confined? Second, tell me when,where and who decided scripture would be standard to use to measure doctrines,tradtions, and teachings?

Attejohannes · #82 Apr 5, '13, 1:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Attejohannes:

1. Really? Show one verse explaining the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? No Apostolic Tradition? Show me one verse mentioning canonization of the OT & NT?

2. Exactly! Because words are oral teachings written down. Written words are always taught and mentioned orally first,not vice vera.

3. No. Developments are not considered irregular. Irregular would fall more on the lines of introducing unorthodox teachings.

4. Then according to you Jesus' only promised the Holy Spirit to the 12 and after their deaths it ceased to exist? Then tell me, if there is no guarantee of correct teaching, then what certitude do we have doctrines such as the Trinity ratified in 325 AD is truly accurate?

5.Second hand? And all the OT writers after Abraham over the years also were second hand thinkers over the centuries. Should we discredit them too? St. Augustine as any other is entitled to his or her theological views and speculations, that in itself does not discredit his staunch defense of Apostolic Authority an teachings.

6. False! When were doctrines such as the Trinity,Hypostatic Union and Incarnation made official? In the 4th and 5th centuries...do they lack apostolic weight? When did Jesus remotely teach all Truths would cease at a specific point in time? God is Eternal,hence we are confined to space,matter and time...big difference.

7.Chapter and verse where Scripture is the ONLY place where authority is confined? Second, tell me when,where and who decided scripture would be standard to use to measure doctrines,tradtions, and teachings?

1. In another thread on the Trinity in Scriptures I wrote: "As an orthodox, you certainly know the Old Testament Trinity (the Lord as three angels (Genesis 18).

In the New Testament there are several instances 1) in which Jesus and God the Father are mentioned as identical (John 1; Romans 9:5 etc) and 2) In which the Holy Spirit is linked with God the Father or Father and the Son (John 14: 16-17; the grand commission in Matthew 18:19; 1. Corintheans 3: 16). And, of course the Annunciation (Luke 1: 36) reveals us that while Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit, He should be called as the Son of God.

Therefore there has been quite from the beginning an understanding among Christians that when we talk about God, we talk about three (uncreated) Persons.

Regarding the authority of the OT, we have Jesus' own words (Matt 5, 17-19). We can also see int the Bible that the first Christians recognised the OT as authoritative word of God (1 Timothy, 13; 2 Timothy 15 - 17).

Regarding the NT, Luke specifically says that his motivation to write his Gospel was to convince the readers how reliable and accurate the (presumably) oral teaching they have received is (Luke 1, 1- 4). In other words the Scripture was put as a standard for the accuracy of the teaching.

The Scriptures do not contain everything of Jesus' life (18 years are missing) . According to John, "the world would not contain" all the books that should be written, if everything were recorded (John21, 25). This being the case, of course the most essential and most important facts were recorded, especially when the intention was to write so that the reader " might believe that Jesus is Christ, Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His Name" (John 20, 31).

2.What I meant (and I apologise if I was not clear enough, English is not my first language) is that we do not find in Ignatios, Polycarp or Justin the Martyr anything that is not already contained in the Scriptures and no phrases like: "In addtion to what has been written, the Apostle John told me etc..." You do not find doctrines that have not already expressed.
If Purgatory, Papal supremacy, Immaculate conception and Assumption were part of oral tradition, why were they not written down by the apostles, and why - if there was a consensus that they are authenthic traditions - they were disputed and not unanimously acknowledged when they pop up in the late writings.
3. I]Read the instructions of Didache regarding the Eucharist, and just try to celebrate the Eucharist in that way in any Catholic Church to day
[/i]
4.]The Holy Spirit ignites our faith and sanctifies us and is constantly among us.I do not believe that it His task to reveal us historical events that God has seen fit not to record in Scriptures or reliable history, or if He did this, I would think that He would use some other means than the fanciful tales like, for example, the stories of the Dormition of the Virgin are.
After the huffing and puffing in Nicea at 325 all the philosophising fathers just managed, by Divine Providence, to formulate the Trinitarian belief that already was in existense in the Scriptures (and I am not quite sure that they managed all too well, witness the Filioque argument).[/i]
5.]So, the predestination doctrine (which Augustine, as far as I know) did not retract, was not Apostolic, and he erred. Then what guarantee we really have about the Apostolicity of his other doctrines (like equalizing the original sin with sexuality).
6. I]The hypostatic union, incarnation and much of the terminology came from the attempt to express a semitic religion in the terms of Greek philosophy. They themself are not holy, just human attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible. Jesus definitely was not an Aristotelean or Platonic philosopher. [/i]

No, I do not believe that new truths regarding the Christianity will be revealed before the Second Coming. " For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I have been known (1 Cor. 13 :12)". Therefore too much speculation of matters that have not been firmly revealed is dangerous, unnecessary and sinful.
7.See my response to you first point.

Isaiah45_9 · #83 Apr 5, '13, 3:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

If Purgatory, Papal supremacy, Immaculate conception and Assumption were part of oral tradition, why were they not written down by the apostles, and why - if there was a consensus that they are authenthic traditions - they were disputed and not unanimously acknowledged when they pop up in the late writings.[/i]

This is the easiest question I have seen in a long time:

Answer:

Because God intended for the Church to be the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and to be the one to exercise His Authority on Earth. Not the written instruments alone.

When the eunuch was trying to interpret Isaiah. Did the Holy Spirit interpret that Scripture to the eunuch? or Did the Holy Spirit bring Phillip to the eunuch to explain it? Imagine that, God choosing other men to guide men through His Grace.

Matt 16:18
Matt 18:17
Acts 5:11
Acts 8:1
Acts 8:3
Acts 9:31
Acts 11:22
Acts 11:26
Acts 12:1
Acts 12:5
Acts 13:1
Acts 14:23
Acts 14:27
Acts 15:3
Acts 15:4
Acts 15:22
Acts 15:41
Acts 16:5
Acts 18:22
Acts 20:17
Acts 20:28
Rom 16:1
Rom 16:4
Rom 16:5
Rom 16:16
Rom 16:23
1 Cor 1:2
1 Cor 4:17
1 Cor 6:4
1 Cor 7:17
1 Cor 10:32
1 Cor 11:16
1 Cor 11:18
1 Cor 11:22
1 Cor 12:28
1 Cor 14:4
1 Cor 14:5
1 Cor 14:12
1 Cor 14:19
1 Cor 14:23
1 Cor 14:28
1 Cor 14:33
1 Cor 14:34
1 Cor 14:35
1 Cor 15:9
1 Cor 16:1
1 Cor 16:19
2 Cor 1:1
2 Cor 8:1
2 Cor 8:18
2 Cor 8:19
2 Cor 8:23
2 Cor 8:24
2 Cor 11:8
2 Cor 11:28
2 Cor 12:13
Gal 1:2
Gal 1:13
Gal 1:22
Eph 1:22
Eph 3:10
Eph 3:21
Eph 5:23
Eph 5:24
Eph 5:25
Eph 5:27
Eph 5:29
Eph 5:32
Phil 3:6
Phil 4:15
Col 1:18
Col 1:24
Col 4:15
Col 4:16
1 Thess 1:1
1 Thess 2:14
2 Thess 1:1
2 Thess 1:4
1 Tim 3:5
1 Tim 3:15
1 Tim 5:16
Philem 2
James 5:14
3 John 6
3 John 9
3 John 10
Rev 1:4
Rev 1:11
Rev 1:20
Rev 2:1
Rev 2:7
Rev 2:8
Rev 2:11
Rev 2:12
Rev 2:17
Rev 2:18
Rev 2:23
Rev 2:29
Rev 3:1
Rev 3:6
Rev 3:7
Rev 3:13
Rev 3:14
Rev 3:22
Rev 22:16

Do you know that all these verses have one word in common?

CHURCH.

I do think Scriptures have been and are onto something.

Jesusaves777 · #84 Apr 5, '13, 9:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by aidanbradypop

Could it be a lack of understanding of the history of Christianity? Many of my Protestant friends, mainly Baptist and Evangelical, know nothing of the Church Fathers. They were simply never taught about them.

I agree! When I was a Protestant I was never taught about that either...very sad! I'm now coming to the fullness of the faith this Sunday!!!

Lion777 · #85 Apr 5, '13, 9:56 pm

We being raised on the printing press and now the internet often forget how the ancients depended on oral tradition. When it comes to Sacred Tradition the writings of ECF provide one of our best windows into those parts of sacred tradition that were not explicitly recorded in the Bible.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Monte RCMS · #86 Apr 6, '13, 3:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lion777

We being raised on the printing press and now the internet often forget how the ancients depended on oral tradition. When it comes to Sacred Tradition the writings of ECF provide one of our best windows into those parts of sacred tradition that were not explicitly recorded in the Bible.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

When various non-Catholic missionaries ring my doorbell, I engage them in polite discussion.

NONE of them are familiar with the Early Church Fathers ... NOR do they have any familiarity with the origins of the Bible. It's as if Christianity just popped up a hundred years ago ... versus its long history stretching back 2000 years AND all of the pre-figuring from the Old Testament ... going back another 2000 or so years before that ... all in all nearly 4000 years.

But, instead, they just don't know.

They criticize the Holy Eucharist ... not knowing the Scriptural origins and writing.

They criticize the Sacred Liturgy ... the Catholic Mass ... not knowing the Scriptural origins and writing.

There is a humorous saying: "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." ... not realizing that it's really true that Jesus did not speak English. That English did not exist back then ... that there are all kinds of twists and turns in the translations ... not only in the language and the words, but also in the customs and traditions and cultures of the times and places ... and the linkages are found in the Early Church Fathers.

Who among us has any idea of what this means: "I know my sheep and they know me."

Nicea325 · #87 Apr 6, '13, 4:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

1. In another thread on the Trinity in Scriptures I wrote: "As an orthodox, you certainly know the Old Testament Trinity (the Lord as three angels (Genesis 18).

In the New Testament there are several instances 1) in which Jesus and God the Father are mentioned as identical (John 1; Romans 9:5 etc) and 2) In which the Holy Spirit is linked with God the Father or Father and the Son (John 14: 16-17; the grand commission in Matthew 18:19; 1. Corintheans 3: 16). And, of course the Annunciation (Luke 1: 36) reveals us that while Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit, He should be called as the Son of God.

Therefore there has been quite from the beginning an understanding among Christians that when we talk about God, we talk about three (uncreated) Persons.

Regarding the authority of the OT, we have Jesus' own words (Matt 5, 17-19). We can also see int the Bible that the first Christians recognised the OT as authoritative word of God (1 Timothy, 13; 2 Timothy 15 - 17).

Regarding the NT, Luke specifically says that his motivation to write his Gospel was to convince the readers how reliable and accurate the (presumably) oral teaching they have received is (Luke 1, 1- 4). In other words the Scripture was put as a standard for the accuracy of the teaching.

The Scriptures do not contain everything of Jesus' life (18 years are missing) . According to John, "the world would not contain" all the books that should be written, if everything were recorded (John21, 25). This being the case, of course the most essential and most important facts were recorded, especially when the intention was to write so that the reader " might believe that Jesus is Christ, Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His Name" (John 20, 31).

2.What I meant (and I apologise if I was not clear enough, English is not my first language) is that we do not find in Ignatios, Polycarp or Justin the Martyr anything that is not already contained in the Scriptures and no phrases like: "In addtion to what has been written, the Apostle John told me etc..." You do not find doctrines that have not already expressed.
If Purgatory, Papal supremacy, Immaculate conception and Assumption were part of oral tradition, why were they not written down by the apostles, and why - if there was a consensus that they are authenthic traditions - they were disputed and not unanimously acknowledged when they pop up in the late writings.
3. I]Read the instructions of Didache regarding the Eucharist, and just try to celebrate the Eucharist in that way in any Catholic Church to day
[/i]
4.]The Holy Spirit ignites our faith and sanctifies us and is constantly among us.I do not believe that it His task to reveal us historical events that God has seen fit not to record in Scriptures or reliable history, or if He did this, I would think that He would use some other means than the fanciful tales like, for example, the stories of the Dormition of the Virgin are.
After the huffing and puffing in Nicea at 325 all the philosophising fathers just managed, by Divine Providence, to formulate the Trinitarian belief that already was in existense in the Scriptures (and I am not quite sure that they managed all too well, witness the Filioque argument).[/i]
5.]So, the predestination doctrine (which Augustine, as far as I know) did not retract, was not Apostolic, and he erred. Then what guarantee we really have about the Apostolicity of his other doctrines (like equalizing the original sin with sexuality).
6. I]The hypostatic union, incarnation and much of the terminology came from the attempt to express a semitic religion in the terms of Greek philosophy. They themself are not holy, just human attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible. Jesus definitely was not an Aristotelean or Platonic philosopher. [/i]

No, I do not believe that new truths regarding the Christianity will be revealed before the Second Coming. " For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I have been known (1 Cor. 13 :12)". Therefore too much speculation of matters that have not been firmly revealed is dangerous, unnecessary and sinful.
7.See my response to you first point.

Chapter and verse where Scripture is the ONLY place where authority is confined? Second, tell me when,where and who decided scripture would be standard to use to measure doctrines,tradtions, and teachings?

aidanbradypop · #88 Apr 6, '13, 4:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Chapter and verse where Scripture is the ONLY place where authority is confined? Second, tell me when,where and who decided scripture would be standard to use to measure doctrines,tradtions, and teachings?

He is no longer here

TarkanAttila · #89 Apr 6, '13, 6:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Chapter and verse where Scripture is the ONLY place where authority is confined? Second, tell me when,where and who decided scripture would be standard to use to measure doctrines,tradtions, and teachings?

The Table of Contents :P

With all gravity, nowhere in the whole of Scripture.

It used to be we thought The Shepherd and 1 Clement were Scripture. (And 1 Clement would be a great choice, if it were inspired by God.) And we used to think Hebrews and the Apocalypse were forgeries. (They seem the least like the rest of the NT - except that the early Church decided they were Word of God.)

We have to learn the Fathers alongside the Scriptures. They were written by our Fathers, who passed on what Our Father wanted us to know. Does it matter whether it comes from word of mouth, or word of page?

The difference is only this: Scripture is the foundation. Tradition is the house built on the foundation. Lutherans etc. demolished Tradition and built a new house on the foundation. In doing so, they destroyed any connections they had with the Church, and the Traditions of the Apostles, and made their own house - attractive, to be sure, but not the house the Apostles passed down to us through the ages.

aidanbradypop · #90 Apr 8, '13, 6:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarkanAttila

The difference is only this: Scripture is the foundation. Tradition is the house built on the foundation. Lutherans etc. demolished Tradition and built a new house on the foundation. In doing so, they destroyed any connections they had with the Church, and the Traditions of the Apostles, and made their own house - attractive, to be sure, but not the house the Apostles passed down to us through the ages.

Very good point. I do not believe many well rounded Lutherans would disagree with that. They are still on the same foundation, yet built another house.

catholic answers forum BANNED

Friday, May 24, 2013

Attejohannes is Banned-- Early Church Fathers...Matter or Not?

No comments:

Post a Comment