Posted on 10/27/2011 4:05:56 PM PDT by 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
There are numerous metaphors in Scripture. Surely you don’t think God really has wings, for example, do you? It is clear by its context that the bread used in Communion is meant to show Jesus as the fulfillment of the Passover. Anything more is unbiblical, and results in perverse doctrines.
Again, I stand with Paul, who wrote (and I quote):
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
Paul said “BREAD,” and so do I. Among other things, he understood the partaking of the BREAD to be a proclamation of Christ’s completed (COMPLETED, as in FINISHED) work on the Cross. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Paul.
Or are you saying that Scripture is wrong? That maybe there was a typo? Or maybe Paul used the word “bread,” but didn’t really mean “bread”? Paul used the word “proclaim,” but maybe he really meant “perform.”
I’m concerned that you are so sold on this unbiblical doctrine, that you won’t accept the clear teaching of Scripture.
And that you call me a non-Christian shows your disregard for Christ, my Savior, and unhealthy regard for your Roman Catholic tradition.
CB, i don’t recall you lying on this thread, i ping you because i thought you would want to be included.
the others? what do you call someone who posts claims about the Church they know to be false?
as the saying goes “ if the shoe fits.....”
So you are now saying that the New Earth version of Creation is metaphoric?
Jesus said “This is My Body”
do you imagine He could have said “This REPRESENTS My Body”?
if He meant that it only “represented” His Body?
but we have no need to have any doubt what He meant, the Apostles taught the Real Presence and the Catholic Church received it’s doctrine from them as evidenced by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. etc.
we need to go to the 16th century to have this “represents” heresy arrive on the world scene.
This is My Body seems clear to me, who is rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture??
Christians don’t attack the Church, the Body of Christ on earth. do they?
God uses even evil people for His glorification and plan.
i agree, by my responding to the evil posted on this thread, God’s truth was able to be proclaimed to the glory of His Son, Jesus Christ! Amen.
Hebrews9:23-28 23Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
See post 347
"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Mat.16:18; John 21:17), NOT A SINGLE ONE APPLIES THEM TO THE ROMAN BISHOPS AS PETER'S SUCCESSORS. How many Father have busied themselves with these texts, yet NOT ONE of them whose commentaries we possess- Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas-has dropped the FAINTEST HINT that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!
Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together." - J.H. Ignaz von Dillinger, The Pope and the Council (London, 1869), p. 74.
Not enough to convince you?
Peter de Rosa, also a devout Catholic writes:
"It may jolt them [Catholics] to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it [Mat. 16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies "Thou art Peter" to anyone BUT PETER. One after another they analyse it: Cyprian, origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are NOT EXACTLY PROTESTANTS.
Not one of them calls the bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. This is as staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead...
For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith- or the Lord in whom Peter has faith- which is called the Rock, NOT Peter. ALL the councils fo the church FROM NICAEA in the fourth century to CONSTANCE in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the Church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests.
...NOT ONE of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him...There is NO HINT OF AN ABIDING OFFICE.
So the early church DID NOT look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, NOR, therefore, DID IT THINK that each Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter...The gospels DID NOT create the papacy; the papacy, ONCE IN BEING, leaned for support on the gospels [though it wasn't there]. -Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (Crown Publishers, 1988), pp. 24-25.
Note: both of these men are devout Catholics. Not some disgruntled former Catholics or Catholic "bigots". Read it and weep, Rome.
This person, AnneM62, just sent me a PM because she evidently doesn’t have the decency to post her comments in the public forum. She was obviously against Sols Scriptura but also obviously didn’t understand what it means. She suggested that anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura should get rid of all their churches. Has anyone else experienced this from this poster?
i did, it’s perfect Catholic doctrine.
i told you, when the Catholic Church was deciding the canon, it rejected any book who’s teaching contradicted in any way the Catholic Faith received from the Apostles. the book of Hebrews was accepted because what it says matchess Catholic theology perfectly.
now, we can’t help that some people mis-state or mistake what true Catholic doctrine is. so, some set up the “straw man” arguement that the Mass kills Jesus again and again and then uses Hebrews to show how the straw man is false.
Catholics laugh at such tactics ( kinda like Obama saying Republicans want dirty water )
the Church was using the Book of Hebrews in its readings 16 centuries before these “straw man” arguements were invented.
time to turn in.
Interesting information.
Not here..what a brave soul, willing to give you the ‘what for’ in a private reply..lol
The first is Peter deRosa’s The fatal flaw of Christianity with the snappy subtitle: He did not rise from the dead and the dogma of Original Sin is pure invention. I know that not everybody likes doing this, but every now and then I get the strong urge to read something that wants to tell me that all I believe and affirm is utter bollocks. Besides, I think it is wisdom to give very different opinions at least a hearing. However, while some of the arguments were insightful, this passionately written book continually sets up a ‘straw man’ Christianity (as many militant Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians do), betrays an appalling lack of balance in the treatment of the evidence, and gets numerous factual issues muddled that first year theological students could correct. Though I’m tempted to write: ‘A useful resource if you’ve run out of loo roll’, as it wasn’t all bad I’ll simply limit myself to: ‘Not the best’.
let’s see, we were told Peter de Rosa is a “devout Catholic”
oh really?????
He is a former priest, former Catholic who wrote a book that denise Jesus rose from the dead!!!!!
well, i can see how someone who denies Jesus rose from the dead would also deny the papacy. what i can’t see how someone who left the Church after he was defrocked as a priest and then wrote a book denying Jesus rose from the dead, can in anyway be described as a “devout Catholic”
LOL!!!!!!!!!
I haven’t seen anyone claim the CC “kills” Jesus just that they “offer” Him as a sacrifice. The CC does use the phrase “the mystical slaying of the victim”.
This is what I love about Catholicism. Never mind the truth of what is said, all that matters is that the messenger is killed. It’s worked for centuries. Just kill the messenger. They are “self-described devout” or “poorly catechized” or “disgruntled ex-” or “insane”. We shall see what the truth is. Ah, now this is an “appalling lack of balance in the treatment of the evidence”. A new and improved excuse I must say. But an excuse just the same..
Read post #161, we are accused of “crucifying Him anew”
does anyone survive from dying if they are crucified anew?
it also says we deny the once for all death......
well if we deny the once for all death, we must teach He dies over and over again as we crucify Him anew.
i don’t blame you missing this post, it’s a long thread. i also don’t blame you for what was said, but i do notice not one non Catholic condemned this post, although smvoice did post actual Church teachings proving it false.
LOL!!! THAT IS WEAK, I MUST SAY.
this is all you can say after you were caught red handed trying to palm this guy off as a “devout Catholic” ( your words, not mine ) and then anyone can google search him and discover not only is he not a “Catholic” ( devout or otherwise ) he even denies Jesus rose from the dead!!!!!
LOL!!
what’s next, are you going to start using Peter Hitchens to attack the Church?? LOL!!
Anyone who comes out of the Harlot becomes anathema. More power to him. Perhaps he will come to the knowledge of the truth of the gospel. He certainly did not find it in Rome.
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.