No, the writings of the early Church Fathers show that they were clearly Catholic and would not have recognized Protestantism.
Not when read in context it does not nor is it "universally" believed among all the ECFs.
The context of St. Justin's Apology is clear and coincides with Catholic teaching. Nor can you show any denial of this teaching by the early church. It would seem that your use of "context" is an unfounded assumption of Protestant teaching in the early church. This is not context, but iesegesis.
No...Scripture says the individual is led by the Spirit...not an organization.
I refer you to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts: "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us . . ."
One of your fellow Roman Catholics claims the Cardinals who elected the pope was not guided by the Spirit. Do you hold to that position?
It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Cardinals are infallibly lead by the Holy Spirit in the election of popes.
I will ask you again, but this time regarding the ECFs, how can you, as a lay Roman Catholic even begin to understand these writings unless Rome tells you what they mean?
It's basically the same question I asked you earlier about how can you read Scripture and begin to understand it unless Rome tells you what it means....and that will only involve a handful of verses.
What nonsense! Accepting the authority of Church teaching does not mean that one must put aside one's own reasoning. How often do you refer to another verse in the Bible to help you understand it? It is the same with our use of Tradition. Just as I would rely on other verses in the Bible to help understand a passage, I accept Church teaching in aiding my understanding of the Bible. This does not mean, as you have implied, that I must wait for a church definition of each and every verse before I can know what it means.
They would not have recognized the Roman Catholic Mary.
They would not recognize the apparitions claiming to be Mary and promising avoidance of the hell-fire by wearing a piece of cloth or being "devoted" to it.
They would not recognize the papacy and all of the ostentatious outfits and processions of Rome.
There are plenty more examples but these suffice to illustrate my point that Roman Catholicism was not practiced in the early church.
I refer you to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts: "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us . . ."
Yes....the Spirit leading individuals....just as noted.
>> It's basically the same question I asked you earlier about how can you read Scripture and begin to understand it unless Rome tells you what it means....and that will only involve a handful of verses.<<
What nonsense! Accepting the authority of Church teaching does not mean that one must put aside one's own reasoning.
Yet that is the sense I have gathered from your fellow Roman Catholics on these issues....that you can only go with what "mother church" has ruled upon.
How often do you refer to another verse in the Bible to help you understand it?
Yes...in Bible study that is part of exegesis.
It is the same with our use of Tradition. Just as I would rely on other verses in the Bible to help understand a passage, I accept Church teaching in aiding my understanding of the Bible. This does not mean, as you have implied, that I must wait for a church definition of each and every verse before I can know what it means.
Yet your problem arises from the many contradictory writings of the fallible ECFs.
Which one(s) are the one(s) you're supposed to lean upon?
How do you personally know....unless your denomination tells you?
Roman Catholics have long accused us Christians of YOPIOS....there was even one of your members who used to post a cereal box with that as the title.
Yet here you admit to doing the very thing Roman Catholics condemn us for. Do you see the irony on this?
I'll post more of a reply on Justin later tonight.