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.
Right. Whereas this thread IS identified as a closed thread. Now do you get it?
Then I hope you can appreciate the future postings from the Early Church Fathers and post some insightful comment from your own readings.
Like freeper 'narses', I also maintain several ping lists. Some of these overlap. Since posting to FR is not my full time occupation, I don't have the time to weed out the overlap. Hence, pinging a thread occasionally entails multiple lists.
Do you?
Ooops! Well, most Catholics are pro life ;-)
Indeed. Thanks for the bump, btw.
All Catholics are pro-life, many pro-life activists who are not Catholic convert as they are exposed to that reality. (If they are pro-abortion, they are NOT Catholic. Period. No matter what they claim.)
In my practice I have many RCs on oral contraceptives. So based on your statement there are maybe 323 RCs in the US?
Maybe. Not all who are called, but few are chosen.
BTW, how do you reconcile prescribing pills that thwart the Will and Word of God? What Christian support for contraception can you muster now and will that work in front of the Judgment Chair?
While the purpose of these threads is to clarify and educate both Catholics and Protestants and, given that cdcdawg has left me the decision on what to post next, it will be The Church. It will be posted this afternoon. Look forward to these continued dicusssions.
Maybe you should clean your own house before you come after us Proddies.
(BTW, did I say I write the scripts or in my practice? I have 9 colleagues with scripts pads. I see a lot of Roman Catholic patients who are on the pill.)
I always read every post on that subject. That history is what proves the Truth of Scripture. From Pentacost on those men and women could have retreated into the culture, but they were willing to die for something they knew as eye-witnesses to be true. It is the early history of our culture; a culture that is under attack by a very different view of God, or a view of a very differnt god.
I just caught the fact that I interloped on this caucus thread, so I hope that didn't ruffle any feathers. Never post before the second cup of coffee. I think that is in the Didache somewhere.
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).
However, if members of the other confession being spoken for here consider the statements to be false, incomplete, strawmen arguments and the like – then the thread should be open for rebuttal.
For instance, if a Protestant Caucus article were to say that Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict, that is a simple statement of fact which should not open the thread for rebuttal. If however the article said, “Pope Benedict’s said x.” – then the members of the Catholic confession have cause to be concerned. And if the statement were false, incomplete, a strawman argument or whatever – that thread likewise should be open for rebuttal.
So the bottom line here is whether the above statements are uncontestable factual statements or not. What say you?
"His articles of religion, particularly the one on Holy Communion, are not flattering at all toward Catholicism."
That's OK. His brother's hymns make up for all that stuff! :)
RM: ...if members of the other confession being spoken for here consider the statements to be false, incomplete, strawmen arguments and the like – then the thread should be open for rebuttal.
Ahem. The whole paragraph you posted is a perfect example of false, incomplete, and strawmen arguments. There's a reason the Reformation was called the Reformation, and not the Restoration (as the Cambellites dubbed their 19th century movement). The "caucus" designation needs to come off.
"The 'caucus' designation needs to come off."
I agree.
The same will be true if a Protestant Caucus makes a statement about the Catholic confession which any Catholic on the forum considers to be false, incomplete, a strawman argument, etc.
It cuts both ways.
Then no thread can ever really be a 'caucus' thread, as FACTS alone never exist in a post. Certainly both you quote are factual, although the first is incomplete.
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.