Apostolic Succession and the Roman Catholic Church

Referencing the so-called "fathers" can have its place (as in establishing the Christians met on the first day of the week in the 1st century) but they were nor unified in all things

AH HA!!! Now you've caught my evil and sinister plot with our Catholic friends. In actuality, as you so rightfully point out, the early fathers were not unified in all things. Some of them also held some pretty strange ideas. They were, however, unified on basic principles which they formed councils to sort out.

Personally, I don't mind saying that I follow the teachings of the fathers. As a Protestant I'm free to pick and choose what I want to believe from their writings. Their writings are not inspired. It does not measure up to the scriptures. It is no different than if I picked up a concordance to use as reference material. If something doesn't make sense from a scriptural point of view, then I don't have to accept it. The scriptures are the baseline for all truth. But the writings are like going to Sunday School and listening to what others might say.

Our Catholic friends enjoy telling us how they follow the teachings of the church fathers. In actuality they don't simply because their writings are diverse. They pick and choose the ones they want to recite and ignore the rest. Over time, they have modified the teachings the doctrine of the fathers to such an extent that the best they can offer are quotes from the 15th century. Ask them about atonement, justification, etc., and they don't follow what is written by the early fathers. Catholics have a problem in what the Church now believes and what was the early teachings, which often contradicts. Their reasoning for this deviation-knowledge has evolved.

Thanks for the clarification. And you are correct that to some degree it is pick and choose, while the real basis for RCs assurance is not CFs or Scripture, etc, as such are open to some degree of fallible interpretation by them, rather it is the presumed perpetual infallibility of Rome, which they seek to persuade us to trust in by referencing CFs etc.

Too tired to post more. Have a God night.

YOU SAID: " Personally, I don't mind saying that I follow the teachings of the fathers. As a Protestant I'm free to pick and choose what I want to believe from their writings. Their writings are not inspired. It does not measure up to the scriptures. It is no different than if I picked up a concordance to use as reference material. If something doesn't make sense from a scriptural point of view, then I don't have to accept it. The scriptures are the baseline for all truth. But the writings are like going to Sunday School and listening to what others might say. "

RESPONSE: Yes I agree. Further, both our Catholic friends and some Protestants forget that even a layman who prayerfully and with faith seeks guidance in interpretation of scripture will eventually personally receive such guidance from the Lord himself-as promised. In this limited sense everyman is a priest. In addition, the faithful in talking among themselves can arrive at a valid reliable interpretation of scriptural points. The Christians must have patience as they discuss scriptural interpretation among themselves. Lastly, there are canons of interpretation to help guide the layman.

As in other examples, RC scholarship on this issue moves from conservative to liberal, as seen in the intro to EPHESIANS in the RC New American Bible:

Traditionally this “Captivity Epistle” has, along with Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, been dated to an imprisonment in Rome, likely in A.D. 61–63. Others appeal to an earlier imprisonment, perhaps in Caesarea (Acts 23:27–27:2). Since the early nineteenth century, however, much of critical scholarship has considered the letter’s style and use of words (especially when compared with Colossians), its concept of the church, and other points of doctrine put forward by the writer as grounds for serious doubt about authorship by Paul. The letter may then be the work of a secretary writing at the apostle’s direction or of a later disciple who sought to develop Paul’s ideas for a new situation around A.D. 80–100. - http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Ephesians&ch=

In any case, the assertion by a Catholic on one of the many things not "officially" (which can very in meaning) taught, and at odds with what is taught in Rome, is another example of the varied opinions of Catholics engaging in what they condemn prots for doing.

The Christians must have patience as they discuss scriptural interpretation among themselves.

Just start talking about one of the five items of the TULIP and the Lord will bless you bountifully with all sorts of trials for you to practice patience. :O)

As far as Orthodox Presbyterian, I'm not far from that view myself.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.