Fathers vs. the Evangelicals

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/god.htm ^ | vanit

[rzman21]

I challenge Evangelicals to put their interpretation of the Bible and their theology up against the acid test of what the Early Church Fathers taught.

Perhaps, Evangelicalism is closer to the truth than Mormonism, but it still has a long way to go.

Purpose

This Web page is dedicated to the defense of Catholic doctrines within Patristic thought. The Catholic rule of faith consists of three coordinate and complementary authorities: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching Church. The Church Fathers used both Scripture and Tradition to explain and defend the Catholic faith. Corunum's mission is to present the outline of Catholic doctrines as they appear in the writings of the Church Fathers.

What you will Find Inside

Corunum Apologetic Web site does not contain a library of the writings of the Church Fathers. There are a host of sites on the internet which offer the Ante-Nicene Fathers(ANF) edited by Cleveland Coxe and the Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers(NPNF) edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.(cf. ANF/NPNF ). Inside you will find testimony from the Church Fathers on various Catholic doctrines listed in chronological order.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

Taught by St. Peter the Apostle

Against schism:

"Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that "we are members one of another?" Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, "Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." Clement of Rome[regn c.A.D. 91-101],To the Corinthians,46(A.D. 91),in ANF,I:17-18

Taught by St. Peter the Apostle

[Hacksaw]

Since Genesis 1-11 is not the slightest bit more impossible or unlikely than the virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, or real presence,

Actually, it is a hell of a lot more improbable and unlikely. You are free to continue this obsession over what Catholics are supposed to think (even though I doubt we will will be ditching our biology and phycics texts anytime soon), but in my opinion you should be spending your time on the people you venerate. Seems like a lot of them have even less use for the Old Testament than you claim Catholics do.

I have concluded the near universal embrace of evolution and higher criticism by Catholics/Orthodox is based on nothing more than an antipathy towards the people with whom belief in Genesis1-11 is associated--a reason that is purely sociological, with no theological reasoning whatsoever.

Good for you. You're right, it has nothing to do with gradeschool level facts, it's rooted in anti semitsm.

[RnMomof7]

Oh sure, they'll admit fallibility in "principle," (where it doesn't cost them anything) but of getting them to admit it in "practice" (aside from being caught red-handed in sin) I can remember exactly one in all my fifty years.

So is that true of the magistrum too??

[CynicalBear]

>>He says something, and it "is." That's good enough for me.<<

That’s right, He said “is”. At the time He was on earth with an earthly physical “flesh”. He no longer has that “earthly physical flesh” so by claiming His “physical” presence you are putting Him “back” into His earthly body. That would be denying His transfiguration. He said He was at the right hand of the Father, yet you claim to put Him back into earthly flesh. Blasphemy.

[papertyger]

...is that true of the magistrum too??

If you're aware of one, by all means...bring it!

If you're just playing tit-for-tat like some petulant little girl, my work is done here.

[papertyger]

Obviously, you have no conception of the physics of eternity as it relates to time. Stick to subjects you comprehend when presuming to “correct.”

[CynicalBear]

>> Obviously, you have no conception of the physics of eternity as it relates to time. Stick to subjects you comprehend when presuming to “correct.”<<

So now time travel is possible for carnal earth bound man? Ooofda! Whoda thunk. That's right there next to Necromancy or wizards or something.

[metmom]

for Christians, Jesus is our Sabbath. We rest in Him and His sacrifice on the Cross. We don’t observe ceremonial laws of the OT, which were types and shadows pointing towards Jesus Christ.

Sure. The RCC just made up its own and substitutes them for the OT Law. So it can perhaps legitimately claim that it's not based on having to obey the Law that God established, but instead demands that its adherents obey the law IT established.

Not a good trade off.

If the OT Law that God Himself established can't save, then nothing man substitutes for it can save either.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Since Genesis 1-11 is not the slightest bit more impossible or unlikely than the virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, or real presence,

Actually, it is a hell of a lot more improbable and unlikely.

That is a patently ridiculous statement on its very face. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between an instantaneously created completed universe and a woman giving birth without sexual relations of any kind (and by "sexual relations" I include all the modern techniques), and especially a dead woman coming back and making the sun dance over Portugal. I suppose you've convinced yourself that one is more unlikely than the other, however, to justify your sociological prejudices.

You are free to continue this obsession over what Catholics are supposed to think (even though I doubt we will will be ditching our biology and phycics texts anytime soon), but in my opinion you should be spending your time on the people you venerate. Seems like a lot of them have even less use for the Old Testament than you claim Catholics do.

I don't obsess over non-Orthodox Jews at all. Non-Orthodox Jews and their beliefs don't claim to be unchanging and unchanged, unlike hypocritical Catholics, nor do non-Orthodox Jews claim to be continuing the tradition of the Talmudic Sages.

There are certainly Orthodox Jewish evolutionists as well, but most of them limit evolution to the "days of creation" and interpret Genesis "literally" once Adam arrives on the scene. Oh, and they don't accept the "documentary hypothesis" either.

[metmom]

why would someone want to twist Scriptures to try and make them say what Christians Catholics have rejected for 2,000 years?

There. Fixed it.

Just because Catholics believe it does not mean that all Christendom believes it.

Being Catholic does not by default mean that one is a Christian. Being a Christian does not by default mean one is a Catholic.

The two are not interchangeable terms.

[metmom]

So then the work of the church fathers is cherry picked to say what the Rc wants them to say

If the church fathers are not infallible, that's the only logical conclusion one can reach.

Funny how the CF's are infallible when what they say agrees with current RCC doctrine, but are heretics when they don't.

[metmom]

LOL! Good point.

Just because something is not addressed in Scripture doesn’t give license to anyone to just make up what they feel like and claim that it’s true simply because Scripture doesn’t blatantly deny it.

And even if it does, or Jesus Himself did as with His rebuke of the woman who sought to elevate Mary, they’ll find a way around that, just as they do with the elevating of Mary beyond what’s appropriate in spite of Jesus clear rebuke of it.

[metmom]

Is not the mass a bloodless sacrifice ?

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

If the mass is a bloodless sacrifice, then it's nothing more than an exercise in futility. It can accomplish NOTHING.

[metmom]

We don't argue from silence. We just aren't arguing from scriptures, which is all Protestants will acknowledge despite the vast swaths of interpretive liberty they take in propping up sola scriptura.

Pray tell, where is the scriptural authority for the Protestant Reformation?

It's incredibly ironic that Catholics condemn appealing to Scriptural authority when they themselves appeal to that same Scriptural authority to support their own doctrines like the papacy and the eucharist.

The blatant hypocrisy is obvious to all but the deceived in Rome.

[metmom]

Aside from the fact that he had not yet declared her mother of the Church,

Jesus never declared Mary the mother of His church.

[metmom]

So you also use the fact that the Muslims venerate Mary as justification for doing so?

Hey, you know, if I found the muslims agreeing with me on anything, I'd be checking real quick to find out where I went wrong instead of using them as proof that I was right.

[CynicalBear]

>>Hey, you know, if I found the muslims agreeing with me on anything, I'd be checking real quick to find out where I went wrong instead of using them as proof that I was right.<<

Maybe when your case is so weak you use anything?

[CynicalBear]

BTW, welcome back. Did you have a “blessed” weekend? :-)

[RnMomof7]

The blatant hypocrisy is obvious to all but the deceived in Rome.

Exactly ...LOL

[RnMomof7]

Aside from the fact that he had not yet declared her mother of the Church, and thus "The Woman" of Genesis, we have the examples of John the Baptist, St. Peter, Abraham, and Solomon to show there is nothing inconsistant about Christ making such comments about heros of the faith.

Actually Mary was not the "mother" of Rome until 1965

Scripture tells us who is the mother of the saved

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

[RnMomof7]

Rather, I would be concerned that I'm betting my eternal salvation on the idea that the Scriptures NEVER use a metaphor in more than one way....

That would be funny if it was not so sad.. Rome allegorizes scripture to make it fit.