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

[Zionist Conspirator]

Again, that is precisely my point. If you go by scripture alone, there is no definitive instruction. Nevertheless, ALL legitimate Christian denominations subscribe to the exact understanding of the Trinity promulgated by the Catholic Church.

So even in their heresy, Protestants testify to the authority of the Catholic Church.

And the Orthodox Church . . . and the Non-Chalcaedonian churches . . . and the Nestorian Church.

There's more than just Catholicism and Protestantism in the world, you know.

[papertyger]

There's more than just Catholicism and Protestantism in the world, you know.

No, not really.

I mean sure, they exist, but so do black swans and you don't see anyone getting wrapped around the axel when swans are assumed to be white.

Nevertheless, there will always be the contentious....

[RoadTest]

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” - Matthew 23:9

[Zionist Conspirator]

There's more than just Catholicism and Protestantism in the world, you know.

No, not really.

Now here's something interesting. I've read many Catholic posts scolding ignorant Protestants for not knowing about the other ancient liturgical churches and many Catholic posts invoking those other ancient liturgical churches to prove ancient chr*stianity wasn't Protestant. And now suddenly those other ancient liturgical churches don't matter at all. How very interesting.

I mean sure, they exist, but so do black swans and you don't see anyone getting wrapped around the axel when swans are assumed to be white.

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?

Nevertheless, there will always be the contentious....

Yeah. I guess that's why there are thousands of sects of Protestantism and at least four (surviving) sects of ancient liturgical chr*stianity.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Meant to ping you to post 64.

[papertyger]

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?

Sure it does. You just don't have any way to discount the analogy without looking like a nit-picker, so you do what my three-year-old does when she's told something she doesn't like...

"Huh?"

Besides, it's too late to avoid the optic, anyway.

And now suddenly those other ancient liturgical churches don't matter at all. How very interesting.

So sue me for not being other Catholics...

Yeah. I guess that's why there are thousands of sects of Protestantism and at least four (surviving) sects of ancient liturgical chr*stianity.

No, that's not what I was referring to, but you knew that, didn't you?

[RnMomof7]

Irenaeus (A.D. 180): "Not of ourselves, but of God, is the blessing of our salvation...Man, who was before led captive, is taken out of the power of the possessor, according to the mercy of God the Father, and restoring it, gives salvation to it by the Word; that is, by Christ; that many may experimentally learn that not of himself, but by the gift of God, he receives immortality."

Tertullian: "God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil...For what is of God is never extinguished." "They[heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1

Do you want more?

[RnMomof7]

the apostles preached first then wrote books. The oral word is the key to understanding the written word because it safeguards against heresies.

Only one of the gospels was written by an apostle.. the epistles were written sermons and doctrinal teachings that were circulated among the churches...

That teaching was inspired and preserved by the Holy Spirit just as Christ had promised.. and it tells us that it is foolishness to the perishing..that does not speak well to those that need it "interpreted " by others

[metmom]

The apostles preached first then wrote books. The oral word is the key to understanding the written word because it safeguards against heresies.

That is so backwards.

Oral tradition is so subject to change where something that's written down can be referred back to as the standard.

It's really more that the written word is the key to understanding oral tradition because the written word safeguards against heresy.

Sheesh.....

[metmom]

No more nuts than you making things up as you go along.

The Apostles did not write down every critical point or you could take us to the definitive chapter on trinitarian theology.

Now wait a minute.....

Sure the apostles didn't write down EVERYTHING that happened, but the critical parts? Sure. God had written down what He knows we needed for salvation and growth in Him.

I find it incredibly ironic that a Catholic, of all people would criticize about making stuff up as you go when the Catholic church does that regularly.

A prime example is the bodily assumption of Mary. Their contention is that the Bible doesn't say that it DIDN'T happen, therefore is someone deemed a *church father* proposes it as doctrine, Catholics are expected to buy it because, after all, Scripture doesn't explicitly deny it.

[metmom]

Again, that is precisely my point. If you go by scripture alone, there is no definitive instruction. Nevertheless, ALL legitimate Christian denominations subscribe to the exact understanding of the Trinity promulgated by the Catholic Church.

So even in their heresy, Protestants testify to the authority of the Catholic Church.

No, not because the Catholic church says so but because it can be found in Scripture. They *agree* only because the Catholic church got it right there.

That's what happens when you interpret Scripture correctly.

[RnMomof7]

examples please. ok, you asked, here you go: baptists and lutherans both follow sola scriptura. baptists say Scripture teaches infant baptism is not biblical, the Lutherans say the Scriptures teach infant baptism. who is correct? want one more? baptists say the Lords Supper is a memorial service and the bread remains bread. Lutherans believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. who is correct? i could go on, let’s see how you do with these two examples of “sola scriptura”.

They both know that the catholic doctrine is apostate from the scriptures :)

Lutherns and baptists agree on the essentials.. that is one is saved by the blood of Christ..

How do catholics deal when the church fathers disagree with each other??

[metmom]

"They[heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1

Including opinion pieces written by *church fathers* and the Council of Trent.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?

Sure it does. You just don't have any way to discount the analogy without looking like a nit-picker, so you do what my three-year-old does when she's told something she doesn't like... "Huh?"

If you speak in doubletalk like that to her, I don't blame her.

Besides, it's too late to avoid the optic, anyway.

The hey . . . ?

So sue me for not being other Catholics...

Sounds like aside from the purely political unity, there's as much disagreement among Catholics as among Protestants.

If you really wanted to differentiate yourself from other Catholics, you'd defend creationism and Biblical inerrancy. But then you might get excommunicated.

Yeah. I guess that's why there are thousands of sects of Protestantism and at least four (surviving) sects of ancient liturgical chr*stianity.

No, that's not what I was referring to, but you knew that, didn't you?

That's the whole point. The analogy is a valid one, but you inconsistently ignore it.

[papertyger]

Sure the apostles didn't write down EVERYTHING that happened, but the critical parts? Sure. God had written down what He knows we needed for salvation and growth in Him.

So you're saying trinitarian theology isn't critical? And please show where the Scripture teaches your "Critical Parts" theory.

As far as the Mary issue goes, if she was such a non issue, then why do even the muslims (a pastiche of Jewish and Christian memes to lend authenticity to their new religion) revere her? They were around long before Protestants.

And talk about intellectual dishonesty! Catholics do not claim Mary's unique position BECAUSE Scripture doesn't explicitly deny it. We just point out that the Protestant argument from omission isn't the conclusive lightning bolt they try to make it out to be. And when you stack our "Tradition" against Protestant scriptural silence it becomes pretty obvious why she elicits such histrionics from said Protestants....It would seem God didn't see fit to provide conclusive scriptural refutation to his "born again" children.

In fact, some of my best confutations of Protestant dogma center around Mary.

[metmom]

Catholics do not claim Mary's unique position BECAUSE Scripture doesn't explicitly deny it.

Sure they do. Don't you read your compatriots comments on these threads in regard to this?

Jesus said all He needed to say on the matter here.....

Luke 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!" 28But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

Jesus threw himself on exalting Mary like a bucket of cold water. He put that woman and her attempt to exalt Mary in her place. And what does the Catholic church do? The exact same thing as that woman. They didn't learn. How much plainer can Jesus make it than that, that Mary is not to be exalted?

Mary was an ordinary Jewish girl who had an extra-ordinary privilege and we're happy for her, but that does NOT in any way justify all the speculation about her being conceived without sin, perpetually virgin, bodily assumed not even being sure if she died first or not, *venerating* (worshiping) her, etc.

There's plenty of assumptions made about her that have no Scriptural basis that Catholics are required by their own church to believe under threat of eternal condemnation.

The Trinity, however, is clearly portrayed in Scripture, even if the writer's didn't use the RCC approved terminology.

[RnMomof7]

Catholics do not claim Mary's unique position BECAUSE Scripture doesn't explicitly deny it.

... This poster needs to read the posts from other RC's... There is no foundation for their belief about Mary... not one.. so they have had to appeal to silence

[CynicalBear]

>>if she was such a non issue, then why do even the muslims (a pastiche of Jewish and Christian memes to lend authenticity to their new religion) revere her?<<

Seriously? You went there for justification of the veneration of Mary? Seriously? Oy!

Let’s look at what Jesus said to people who tried to venerate Mary.

Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Notice my insertion of the word that has been translated “yea rather”. The strict translation from Greek encapsulates the word nay. Jesus was disagreeing with the veneration of Mary and says that instead it will be those who “hear the word of God, and keep it”. Why would you want to disagree with Jesus?

[metmom]

For the skeptical among us, here are some links to the Greek.

http://biblos.com/luke/11-28.htm

http://concordances.org/greek/3304.htm

Part of Speech: Particle, Disjunctive Particle
Transliteration: menoun and menounge
Phonetic Spelling: (men-oon’-geh)
Short Definition: nay rather
Definition: nay rather; indeed, truly, really.

3304 menoúnge (from 3303 /mén, “indeed”; 3767 /oún, “therefore”; and 1065 /gé, “really”) – properly, therefore really indeed. 3304 (menoúnge) is often translated, yea rather, indeed on the contrary.

Word Origin
from men, oun and ge
Definition
rather, on the contrary
NASB Word Usage
contrary (1), indeed (1), more than (1).

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

joseph smith could not have said it better than you, great company to keep.