Posted on 01/27/2007 6:12:35 AM PST by NYer
The Early Church Fathers were the leaders and teachers of the early Church. They lived and wrote during the first eight centuries of Church history. Some of their writings were composed to instruct and / or to encourage the faithful. Other writings were composed to explain or defend the faith when it was attacked or questioned. The writings of the Early Fathers are widely available and studied. They are accepted by Catholic and non Catholic scholars alike. Thus they provide common ground in establishing the beliefs and practices of the early Church.
The earliest of the fathers are known as the Apostolic Fathers. Their writings come to us from the first two centuries of Church History. They were the immediate successors of the Apostles. Three of them were disciples of one or more of the Apostles. Clement of Rome was a disciple of the apostles Peter and Paul. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were disciples of the Apostle John. Naturally we would expect that those who were taught directly by the Apostles would themselves believe and teach correctly.
Protestantism is based on the allegation that the Catholic Church became corrupt shortly after 312 AD. That’s when the emperor Constantine converted and made Christianity the state religion. It is alleged that pagan converts came into the Church bringing with them many of their pagan beliefs and practices. According to Protestant historians the pagan practices that were brought into the Church became the distinctive doctrines of Catholicism. Thus the Catholic Church was born and true Christianity was lost until the Reformation. But history tells us a different story.
Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (8:2 [A.D. 107]).
In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.
As you can see, the writings of the Early Fathers are especially helpful in refuting the Protestant claim that many Catholic doctrines were invented in later years. Although they are wrong concerning the age of Catholic doctrines their reasoning is sound. If a teaching appears after the apostolic age without evidence of previous support it must be false. Curiously enough though, they abandon this line of reasoning when it comes to many of their own beliefs such as the doctrine of Scripture Alone (mid 1500’s), The Rapture (late 1800’s), the licitness of artificial contraception (1930) and many others.
It is important to note that some doctrines existed in a primitive form during the early years. These doctrines would develop over time. One example is the Doctrine of the Trinity. All of its elements were present at the beginning but it wasn’t clearly defined the way it is today. It wasn’t until later that it was fully understood. This would not make it a late teaching as all of the information was there from the beginning. Other doctrines were developed in this same way.
Also worthy of note is the fact that the Early Fathers occasionally disagreed on minor issues that were not yet settled by the Church. This does not present us with a problem as we do not claim that the Fathers were infallible. While they were not infallible they were unmistakably Catholic. They clearly illustrate the fact that the early Church had no resemblance to Protestantism.
John Henry Newman was one of the more famous converts to Catholicism. After studying the Early Fathers he wrote: "The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).
Christianity was started by Christ 2000 years ago and it has existed for 2000 years. It didn’t go away for 1200 years and come back. Indeed that would have rendered Jesus’ words impotent. In Matthew 16:18 as He was establishing His Church Jesus gave us a guarantee. He said: "I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.
"Are you saying that Orthodox or Orthodox Christian is not how you would refer to your church had Rome not arrogated to itself the term Catholic Church?"
The quick answer is "sort of". Prior to the Great Schism, the Fathers always referred to The Church as simply "The Church" or "The Catholic Church" or earlier, the "catholic church". All of the Fathers also referred to the Faith as the "orthodox faith", or spoke of "orthodoxy". Since the Schism, the West has used "Catholic", the East generally but not always "Orthodox", but we both still say that we believe in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" in conformity with the Creed the Fathers established at Nicea.
"Thanks. Have to go now - I'll check back later, but what would the East prefer to use? This is a new concept for me."
Well, for now I suspect we'll all stick with what we have done for the past 1000+ years! :)
After a reunion, one would hope we would go back to the old ways, The Church of Rome, The Church of Constantinople, The Church of Moscow, etc,. I suspect we would have to use The Catholic Church or The Church given what the rest of the world says nowadays, but for me, personally, I guess I'd like to see The Church or the catholic church.
I know one millionth of what you guys do about the schism, but to me there seems to be so much bad history, bad blood and bad theology between us, I get depressed about the possibility of reunion.
Then I look at what I know of the spirituality and it occurs to me that if there is a reunion, maybe it will come through the spirituality, through the contemplatives and monastics.
This is where the heart and soul of both Churches are and also where the greatest common ground, similarities are. To my eyes, they look as though there never was a schism.
At least, this gives me the most hope from what little I know about the challenges.
That's one of my closest friend's favorites. I never got around to it, but I'll make a special effort now. thanks..
And thanks very much for your replies.
Excellent.
Thank you for the link also. A wonderful gift.
Reading all posts with interest.
Would it be safe to assume the Reformation was a “Tower of Babel” in the Christian world?
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.