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
Yes ..men will always choose what is consistent with their desires..
Was it first about whether to eat muffins before or after the scones? And then the Presbo-muffins-before split into those who preferred chocolate over oatmeal?
This is so typical of the multiple reformattings
From after the first generation, orthodox Lutherans it's all downhill
To explain: You have the first generation namely Lutheran sticking close to orthodoxy with the Lutherans holding to the True Presence in the Eucharist, to Baptismal regeneration etc.
your own cult splits and re-splits to justify its gay marriage etc. theology it's incredible
Was it first about whether to eat muffins before or after the scones? And then the Presbo-muffins-before split into those who preferred chocolate over oatmeal?
This is so typical of the multiple reformattings
From after the first generation, orthodox Lutherans it's all downhill
To explain: You have the first generation namely Lutheran sticking close to orthodoxy with the Lutherans holding to the True Presence in the Eucharist, to Baptismal regeneration etc.
your own cult splits and re-splits to justify its gay marriage etc. theology it's incredible
When ya point fingers at others.. there are always some pointing back at you.
Good point for your posts — “When ya point fingers at others.. there are always some pointing back at you.”
Oh, so does that mean you believe that one can chose to get saved?
Think about it..reformation day happened before
1) 21 Tradition was declared of equal authority with Bible 2) Apocryphal books added to Bible , 3). Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared doctrine ,… 4) the pope was declared infallible 5) the assumption of the Mary ,and Mary was made “mother” of the church
When ya point fingers at others.. there are always some pointing back at you...
Think about it..reformation day happened before
1) 21 Tradition was declared of equal authority with Bible 2) Apocryphal books added to Bible , 3). Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared doctrine ,… 4) the pope was declared infallible 5) the assumption of the Mary ,and Mary was made “mother” of the church
When ya point fingers at others.. there are always some pointing back at you...
So dismissing your opponents (and that’s how you see Christians who aren’t members of your denomination) as wee children is not insulting someone’s character?
I am not opposed to Christ-followers who happen to be Roman Catholics. If they promote Christ above all, then we share a common bond. I am, however, opposed to Roman Catholics who think that they alone are members of God’s in-group, and that those who follow Christ outside of their denomination are not experiencing the fullness of faith in Christ. To hold such a conviction reveals a low estimation of the Savior.
Jesus said, “Come, follow Me.” And you add a ton of requirements to His simple and gracious offer. Jesus didn’t think very highly of such people in His day ...
Why do you assume it was an insult?
"And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."" - Matthew 18:3.
Yup
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” -Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” - Mark 14:22
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” - Luke 22:19
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” - 1 Corinthians 11:24
can we agree that someone who was defrocked as a priest due to disagreements w/ Catholic doctrine, who then becomes an ex-Catholic and writes a books in this angry stage that attack the papacy and denies Jesus rose from the dead, does not qualify as a “devout Catholic”?
have you no shame?
since it would be 13 centuries before any baptists appear on the world stage, no i don’t wonder ( but i would think baptists should wonder )
Jesus answers that question, it’s sad that “christians” don’t believe Him.
So you are affirming those who disagree with your doctrines?
OK, you’ve got me perplexed.
Or maybe your just being coy, imitating the father of deception and discord.
sorry, reading dan brown does not qualify as knowing church history.
the early 300’s there was the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. so it was for 700 years.
the Holy Spirit did inspire the Church, not only to choose the correct canon ( btw, it was not the 66 book one that appears in the 16th century ), but He also inspired the Church to correctly understand baptism and the Eucharist.
Again, the Apostle Paul calls it “bread.”
If you damn me as heretical for using the term “bread,” then you are damning the Apostle Paul for using the term “bread.”
Can you even acknowledge that Paul used the term “bread,” that it provides clarification about what that substance is? Did he use the term “bread”? Or do you reject Scripture in favor of your denomination’s doctrine?
there are those that love the lie more than the truth......just doing the will of their father.
I am sorry..did I miss your answer? Did the apostles and Jesus eat the actual flesh of Jesus while He was still wearing it??? Or was it spiritual flesh ??? Did Jesus have missing flesh after the last supper?? was he bleeding at the table??
Just how did this work?? If it was" miracle flesh" then is was not really His ACTUAL REAL FLESH and BLOOD ..If it was His REAL ACTUAL FLESHand BLOOD what part of His body did it come from??
Just wondering??
Do you know what the will of the Father is??
so the Holy Spirit led men to believe doctrines in the 16th century that He never led anyone to believe prior to that, and not only were they new doctrines, they rejected what Christians had believed for 16 centuries prior???
that makes no sense and it’s not Biblical.
for example, Christians for 16 centuries believed Baptism was for the remission of sin and receiving the Holy Spirit.
men came along in the 16th century claiming the Scriptures taught baptism is a ceremonial event evidencing the salvation which has already occurred, completely rejecting Acts 2:38. the Holy Spirit can’t contradict Himself and is not the author of confusion.
those claiming the Church is a “man-made” institution show they are ignorant of Jesus and His Body.
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.