Fifty Works From the Early Church That Every Christian Should Read

List Challenges ^ | January 7, 2020

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“ And I’ll note that the original challenger still hasn’t replied after I pointed out that his talking point was a failure.”

It’s not a growing problem.

It’s a going problem.

[Antoninus]

Your list is missing Augustine's The Retractions

That's an awesome one, it's true. One could spend years reading the works of Augustine alone.

[Antoninus]

Catholics can’t do that with half of what the teach and practice.

Sure we can. In fact, entire books have been written which do exactly that. Ironically, this one was written by a former protestant and includes a foreword written by a former protestant. Enjoy!

[Luircin]

So basically what you’re admitting is that the church fathers are self-contradictory.

Sounds like a good argument for sola scriptura.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Actually no.

Start in the first century, and demonstrate the bodily assumption of Mary.

[HarleyD]

They can read the scriptures. They just can’t form an opinion of what scripture teaches.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The whole point is that Catholicism has NEVER been consistent on acceptance of the Apocrypha until AFTER the Reformation."

Not so. You may be proceeding on the assumption that if a thing is not "formally" defined by the Universal Church, it is just flat out not accepted. But that's exactly wrong.

The canon of Scripture, for instance. The Hippo, Carthage, Rome Synods in the late 300's listed the same canon which was used then and used now. And Trent was not the first Ecumenical council to do so, since that same canon was also listed at the Council of Florence, a century before the Protestant Reformation. So from at least the late 300's (which we can document) until now, same canon.

https://forums.catholic.com/t/which-council-established-the-canon-of-scripture/262872/6M

"And after the Reformation, Catholicism anathematized their own church fathers, so I really don’t care about what they said after."

Did you get this from some online source? If you could link that I would be most grateful.

I'm thinking you may have been put off by something like, say, the Synod of Constantinople (6th century) which censured certain writings attributed to Origen (3rd century), but in fact written by Evagrius Ponticus. Origen was allegedly at one point condemned, supposedly for his Christology, but Origen is not even mentioned by name in the actual council proceedings, nor in the version that was signed by the Pope many years after that. Scholars point out that the condemned propositions were being taught by self-described "Origenists" who centuries later taught stuff not found in his writings.

In any case, no one asserts or imagines that the Early Church Fathers were infallible, but only that they were faithful witnesses in whose writings can be found many deep and converging agreements which constitute rich sources of what was believed in the Early Church.

Those who are indifferent to the Early Church are in practice skeptical of the Holy Spirit, Who is seen to be asleep or AWOL and not leading the Body of Believers as Jesus promised.

[Antoninus]

So basically what you’re admitting is that the church fathers are self-contradictory.

No. I'm saying that protestants are expert at cherry-picking out-of-context sayings from the Fathers and are loath to attempt to read them in their entirety -- which explains the hostile reaction to this post and pretty much any post which suggests that people should ready these fascinating witnesses of ancient Christianity.

[Salvation]

I also like the book “Four Witnesses” by Bennett.

[Salvation]

[Luircin]

Bwa ha ha ha ha. Myriad quotes of ‘faith alone’ combined with sources from the ECFs is ‘cherry picking.’

Nice dismissal attempt. Shame it won’t convince anyone that doesn’t already agree with you.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

whose writings can be found many deep and converging agreements which constitute rich sources of what was believed in the Early Church.

And a great many that contradict each other.

And this is why they are informative, but are not authoritative. They are posting their own beliefs only...

Do you take a simple majority, a 2/3 correlation, pick and choose, deny what you don't like, etc?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Still waiting...

Actually no.

Start in the first century, and demonstrate the bodily assumption of Mary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Apparently we have different sources. I mentioned mine in #69

Here's another good one, a Protestant apologetics site:

http://www.handsonapologetics.com/King%20James%20Bible.html

It makes me smile, Luircin, to read your caution that I will "hurt my reputation" if I don't take your bald assertions as fact. You could help us all out by giving sources. Consider the possibility that you may hurt your own reputation if you don't engage with my sources, especially when I cite Protestant apologists and standard references.

I have never read a source anywhere, including various encyclopedias, which deny that at the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

If you can find any reference denying that, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would cite it and give me a link.

That would contribute to our mutual credibility. ;o)

Thank you.

[Antoninus]

Start in the first century, and demonstrate the bodily assumption of Mary.

Fair enough. Let's start here:

"For even though her God-bearing body tasted death, it did not undergo corruption"

Now, your turn. Starting with Sacred Scripture, demonstrate that the bread consumed at the Eucharistic meal is just a symbol of Jesus's body, not His actual body.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

That is the 6th century.

I asked you to start in the 1st century...

Please try again.

[Antoninus]

I asked you to start in the 1st century...

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were actually interested in the answer and weren't playing little rhetorical games. My bad.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“ Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were actually interested

I am. You failed. Why...?

[Elsie]

There’s no canon list in the three chapters you cited, nor in the rest of the Bible.

So?

Every Catholic on FR claims that Jesus started the Catholic church; list or not.

And in the mere lifetime of one man; these CATHOLIC churches had gone off the rails; St. Peter didn't do a very good job; did he!?

[Elsie]

One could spend years reading the works of Augustine alone.

Or just selected portions if you are time limited...

---

"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle?
For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.
Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher."

 Augustine  (De bono viduitatis)