The Early Church Fathers

Stay Catholic ^ | Sebastian R. Fama

[narses]

Right. Whereas this thread IS identified as a closed thread. Now do you get it?

[NYer]

There is a wealth of wisdom in those early writings that any Christian with an eye for history should find engrossing.

Then I hope you can appreciate the future postings from the Early Church Fathers and post some insightful comment from your own readings.

[NYer]

Don't you have a "Catholic" ping list apart from your "pro-life" ping list?

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.

[Gamecock]

Do you?

[NYer]

Actually I keep one list. :)

Ooops! Well, most Catholics are pro life ;-)

[narses]

Indeed. Thanks for the bump, btw.

[narses]

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.)

[Gamecock]

In my practice I have many RCs on oral contraceptives. So based on your statement there are maybe 323 RCs in the US?

[narses]

Maybe. Not all who are called, but few are chosen.

[narses]

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?

[NYer]

It is this conclusion that has led many students of the Early Church Fathers to a conversion to Catholicism.

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.

[Gamecock]

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.)

[cdcdawg]

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.

[Religion Moderator]

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....

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).

If these are uncontestable factual statements, then there is no need to open the thread for rebuttal.

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?

[Kolokotronis]

"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! :)

[Alex Murphy]

"Protestantism is based on the allegation that the Catholic Church became corrupt shortly after 312 AD."

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.

[sitetest]

"The 'caucus' designation needs to come off."

I agree.

[Religion Moderator]

Then the caucus label shall be removed and the thread opened for rebuttal.

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.

[narses]

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.