Replies

I have read some of the work of some of the early church fathers; Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius; and Chrysostom. There are parts of these writings where they show great wisdom. But I have no problem in saying that there are parts of their writing that is in error. Actually, Calvin seems to quote your favorite author, Chrysostom, far more than he seems to quote Augustine. But, I wouldn't know that either because I have done very little reading of Calvin.

I would add that one should look at the history of the Councils and history in general to understand why decisions were made. You'll never fully understand the decision of the 4th Lateran Council of 1213 affirming that the Eucharist can only be given by a priest and that salvation is through the Church only, unless one understands the political situation that Rome had been fighting a "Holy War" for 200 years and people were leaving the Church rather than fight. You'll never fully understand the issue of paying for indulgences unless you understand that Rome had been fighting a war for 400 years, building the lavish Vatican and was broke. They needed cash and this was one way to get it. You'll never understand the Council of Orange creeds unless you understand the heretical doctrine of John Cassian (a great saint of the Orthodox) and his relationship to Pelegius. You'll never understand how the western church maintained two sets of doctrines (one based upon Cassian) simply because Cassian did a Pope a favor.

I hate to sound cynical but many of the decisions of Rome isn't based upon the "tradition" of the fathers. Rather its based upon the expedient need of the Church at the time. A way to keep people in church is to say they're doomed to hell if they don't refresh the grace inside them. A way to generate new income is to create purgatory and say you'll help Aunt Mrytle out of it if you'll provide funding for the latest fresco. As someone pointed out here, Roman is trying to build bridges with the Orthodox simply because they see a threat from the Muslims. I think this is an accurate assessment and is typical how things run. Theology will be bend and twisted to conform to the present day events. Rome will find a way to reconcile. The Orthodox is very upfront about this and, to their credit, are more prudent and reserve with basing things on tradition. Had the Catholics been as prudent perhaps the Reformation never would have occurred.

While I believe the early writings to be important, there is far more to look at than strictly the writings of the early church fathers. Many of our spiritual forefathers were coming out of pagen cultures and held some pretty strange ideas. That's OK. They didn't have a lot to go on or high speed Internet connections. For the first 300 years they were more interested in evangelism. But it like the Samaritan who told the woman at the well,

"It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world." (John 4:42)

While I'm not trying to minimize their writings, I believe you put too much emphasis on them. ALL of them, ALL the Church, believe there was only ONE set of INSPIRED writings captured in the Bible. While I see you often quote father so-n-so, rarely do I see you refer to the inspired writings of God so deemed by the Church. I should point out that in all my readings, the early church fathers (whether they are right or wrong in their interpretation) frequently refer to the scriptures.