Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Can you cite some sources, then, to back that up?
I'm trying to give you a "heads up," not win a debate. You are seeking a church, right? If so, you need to search out the answers for yourself, which I hope you will do. That way you wont be skeptical simply because of the person who brings them to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm trying to give you a "heads up," not win a debate. You are seeking a church, right? If so, you need to search out the answers for yourself, which I hope you will do. That way you wont be skeptical simply because of the person who brings them to you.
I'm not trying to debate either, just honestly asking you to support the thing you said, that I am wrong in my understanding that there's a difference between the Church Fathers and capital-T "Tradition" in "Roman" Catholic doctrine. I feel like you're imagining an antagonism between us that I certainly don't feel and I wish you didn't either. :anguished:
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I've never said I see the Church Fathers as infallible. And from what I've read, the "Roman" Catholic Church doesn't either. There is a lot in the Church Fathers that Rome doesn't see as binding, authoritative, or even compelling. So there is a difference between what they call capital-T "Tradition" and the Church Fathers as writers.

That distinction is dubious, at best. At worst, "Tradition" is just something they make up in a kind of language game they play.

For instance, just by listening to today's RCC's official statements, you'ld never know that "human life begins at conception" has not always been the belief of western Christians, at least not without qualifications. Up until the 19th century, there were different penances imposed for early and late abortions, for instance. But you'll not hear official Catholic teaching mention it. Because they are often concerned more with upholding a certain image of respectability and authority than being transparent and displaying genuine, but costly, integrity.

That's one thing I appreciate about my own denomination's (ELCA) social statements, they generally are honest about things we don't agree on, and the complicated history surrounding various issues. There's little attempt made to cover up ugly realities. Not so in Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Orthodox even have a phrase for this, it's called "Covering your father's nakedness" (in reference to Noah). It goes against the kind of transparent, open deliberation we expect as normative in liberal democracies and/or responsible governance. And many experts on the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church point to a culture that fosters these sorts of attitudes as part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not trying to debate either, just honestly asking you to support the thing you said, that I am wrong in my understanding that there's a difference between the Church Fathers and capital-T "Tradition" in "Roman" Catholic doctrine. I feel like you're imagining an antagonism between us that I certainly don't feel and I wish you didn't either. :anguished:

...you sound so much like a slightly younger version of another highly intelligent gal (can I say 'gal'?) here on CF. Her name, though I am loath to speak it since she's apparently on vacation in beautiful Seville, Spain, is @Silmarien and when she gets back in a few months (June or July, maybe?), perhaps you and her can rap a little over some of your apparent common concerns regarding the essence of Christianity, denominations and other doctrinal questioning. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And if we survey the Reformation Churches, the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterian/Reformed Churches all have secondary authorities in the form of statements of faith, Confessions, etc.
Yes, but all those things are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents. I'm talking about first- and second-century century documents. Shouldn't they have more weight, in answering questions about the Early Church?
So as it turns out, Sola Scriptura, does not entail a rejection of tradition, rather it is a different hierarchy of authority in contrast to the RCC.
Well I'm doing my best to start at the beginning, trying not to even look at the Catholic Church today. Trying to understand the second-century Church's idea of hierarchy and authority. And it looks like a different idea than they came to in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I've never said I see the Church Fathers as infallible. And from what I've read, the "Roman" Catholic Church doesn't either. There is a lot in the Church Fathers that Rome doesn't see as binding, authoritative, or even compelling. So there is a difference between what they call capital-T "Tradition" and the Church Fathers as writers.

I believe the only infallible Church is the Church in Heaven. The NT is infallible, not because the writers were Apostles, but because they received revelation directly from the infallible source, personally from God. The focus should always go back to God, with emphasis on the Gospel, it is the "heart" of the NT. The apostles never ever intended to be props for hero worship, quite the opposite really. Hope this helps even if in a small way. God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Calvin_1985

Active Member
Sep 1, 2018
318
128
38
Roanoke
✟22,899.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?

In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way. But here's the thing:

The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.

But here's the thing: The New Testament isn't very clear on specifics. The NT says to "address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19), but it doesn't say if they're having hymnbooks or Hillsongs. It says to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Jesus]" (1 Cor 11:24), "as often as" you do it (v. 26), but it doesn't say how often to do it (daily or monthly or quarterly or when the mood strikes), or who should be invited, or whether to have a seder or a potluck or a Mass. It says that a local church had elders (presbyters), apparently more than one of them (Acts 14:23), or sometimes they are called overseers (bishops), apparently referring to the same office (1 Tim 3, Titus 1:5, 7). But it's not really very clear about how that's supposed to be structured -- whether it's supposed to be congregational, or presbyterian, or hierarchical. So people talk about "following the New Testament," but unavoidably they are interpolating their own (or somebody else's) interpretation on these unclear situations.

So I finish my study of the New Testament, and I have a picture in my head of what the "New Testament Church" looks like. If I'm a Protestant, it's naturally going to somewhat resemble the church I know -- since I've filled in those unclear gaps with my prior Protestant assumptions. I read about elders and deacons and see my Baptist brethren. If I'm Catholic, it's naturally going to look like the Catholic Church that I know. I read about bishops and envision them in miters and chasubles. The New Testament leaves a lot of white space for connecting dots with our own assumptions.

For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible." But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling. Even though a Christian and a Protestant, I tried to read the New Testament as a historical document (and maybe that was my undoing), and when I got to those gaps, rather than feeling comfortable interpolating my own understanding, I looked for more information.

So I figured, if it's unclear what exactly these Christians were doing in 70 or 80 A.D., maybe I can look at what they were doing in 90 or 100 or 120 A.D. and the picture will be clearer. And it was clearer -- only it dissuaded me of my prior Protestant assumptions.

So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in? :anguished:
The "white spaces" of the New Testament are found in the pages of the Old Testament.the relationship and it's interaction between Father and His chosen are found in the written history of the Relationship Yahweh shows between him and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, the prophets, etc. hope this helps.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in? :anguished:

Sola Scriptura has never meant that we are supposed to ignore history. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura simply states that the Bible alone is the word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Church history can be very useful, but even the practices of the second century church must be measured by Scripture. How do we know whether or not they are good? Are they good simply because they are old? Are they better simply because they are older? Not at all! All traditions, including very old traditions, must be measured by Scripture as the only infallible rule.

Why should a church in 21st century America resemble in every way a church in 2nd century Asia minor? Shouldn't there be some room for cultural expression and liberty? We should never ignore history or throw it out as useless. But why should something be infallible simply because it is old? The only infallible source of truth is God's word.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Furthermore Lutherans went through great pains to prove our position was was not an innovation during the Reformation.
I would really like to read this. Can you show me?
We do however reject a tradition if it conflicts with Scripture.
The problem I see is, as I said above, reading it backwards. Starting from your traditional assumptions and then reading Scripture and deciding it conflicts. How do we know what lens to interpret Scripture through? If we're interpreting it through a lens that's already colored by tradition, how can we know that our lens is even correct? Especially in the Protestant case where there was a conscious denial of the tradition of the past and the "reboot" of tradition from what seems to be new assumptions.
What you may be objecting to are the folks who as I say, "roll and smoke their own theology". Lutherans object to this as well.
But looking at from the first- and second-century perspective, it seems like Luther was quite a toker himself. :tearsofjoy:
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm not trying to debate either, just honestly asking you to support the thing you said, that I am wrong in my understanding that there's a difference between the Church Fathers and capital-T "Tradition" in "Roman" Catholic doctrine. I feel like you're imagining an antagonism between us that I certainly don't feel and I wish you didn't either. :anguished:
But MM, the Catholic concept of Tradition AKA Holy Tradition AKA Sacred Tradition IS that the Church Fathers spoke infallibly.

What is infallible is technically put on the theoretical Traditions, but it is what the CFs wrote or said that is the stuff of that Tradition, by and large.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but all those things are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents. I'm talking about first- and second-century century documents. Shouldn't they have more weight, in answering questions about the Early Church?

I suppose I look at Church history as progressive. Many of the early Creeds, came as a response to heresies spreading within the Church and times when an enlightened and emboldened heretic would stand up in opposition to authoritative leadership in a Church community. If we study the Creeds, they start out simple, and do not appear detailed until later dates. The content of them is also limited and constrained to addressing whatever needed to be addressed at the time in which they were written. So it is not inconsistent to think early Church creeds up to a certain point in history are as authoritative as sixteenth and seventeenth century Confessions, like the "Three Forms of Unity" for example.

Well I'm doing my best to start at the beginning, trying not to even look at the Catholic Church today. Trying to understand the second-century Church's idea of hierarchy and authority. And it looks like a different idea than they came to in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.

I'm not sure what you mean, differences in Church government or how the Church should be governed?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, but all those things are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents. I'm talking about first- and second-century century documents. Shouldn't they have more weight, in answering questions about the Early Church?



Well I'm doing my best to start at the beginning, trying not to even look at the Catholic Church today. Trying to understand the second-century Church's idea of hierarchy and authority. And it looks like a different idea than they came to in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.

Separation from heresy has always been seen as necessary, no matter what authority is presumed. At the time of the Reformation, there was no modern understanding of "Apostolic Succession", as Catholics and Orthodox understand it today. At best it was more of a vague notion. The concept of clergy and their authority and roles developed over the centuries and it's unfair to impose modern ideas onto things that happened centuries ago.

I think somebody like Nikolai Grundtvig is an obvious example of someone who was Protestant and yet capable of appreciating the historical continuity of the Church, that Christianity is more than simply biblicism. He's also a good counterpoint to too much of Kierkegaard's otherworldly pietism. And he also left us with some beautiful hymns.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,844
1,707
58
New England
✟484,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but all those things are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents. I'm talking about first- and second-century century documents. Shouldn't they have more weight, in answering questions about the Early Church?



Well I'm doing my best to start at the beginning, trying not to even look at the Catholic Church today. Trying to understand the second-century Church's idea of hierarchy and authority. And it looks like a different idea than they came to in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.

But The Didache tells laymen to appoint church leaders

"Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers." (15)


Ok here us the Earliest statement on Church leaders I know of.

Another:

Clement of Rome, himself a Roman bishop:

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry." (First Clement, 44)

So where is the issue for me:

Trent teaches thus Rome teaches:

The Council of Trent condemns those who say that church leaders can be appointed by laymen:

"Furthermore, the sacred and holy Synod teaches, that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the other orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether of the people, or of any civil power or magistrate whatsoever, is required in such wise as that, without this, the ordination is invalid: yea rather doth It decree, that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the civil power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door." (session 23, chapter 4, "On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and on Ordination")

What have you read that helps to understand the Church and it's structure for the 2nd and 3rd century.

In Him,

Bill
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Chris V++
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But MM, the Catholic concept of Tradition AKA Holy Tradition AKA Sacred Tradition IS that the Church Fathers spoke infallibly.
No, it's not. Can you find me something that says this? I think you're fundamentally getting it wrong.

The Bible is in an infallible, inerrant source because it's the Word of God, breathed by God Himself through human writers under His inspiration.

But even Catholics do not believe the Church Fathers were "inspired" writers in the same way. They are not infallible, can make mistakes, be wrong -- and so they don't take every single word written by the Church Fathers as "infallible" the way they do the Bible. For one thing, if they did, there would be a major problem of canon. Who are the "Church Fathers"? How do they know? What writings are "infallible" and what are not? Is the Shepherd of Hermas, which frankly is some pretty weird stuff? Are the Epistles of Ignatius, half of which are believed to be spurious? Are the writings of Tertullian after he went off the Montanist deep end? Even the Fathers they hold to be orthodox and authoritative, is everything they wrote held to be authoritative -- infallible? What about when they contradict themselves, or make claims that are easily disproven? So no, you can't really make a blanket statement that "The Roman Catholic Church believes holds the Church Fathers to be infallible" -- because that's really a problematic claim, and not one the Catholic Church even makes.
What is infallible is technically put on the theoretical Traditions, but it is what the CFs wrote or said that is the stuff of that Tradition, by and large.
Yes, and this technical point is important. The things they hold to be authoritative or "infallible" are reported or witnessed by the Church Fathers, but definitely not everything the Church Fathers wrote or said.
 
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So, why not just stay in your present denomination, Mary? :cool:
That appears to be where I'm at, for now.
My point is akin to your several points, and that is: God didn't deliver His Message to us in decisive, necessarily clear-cut, nor comprehensive terms, terms that would exclude the need for us to also further use the 'brains' that He's given each of us, allowing us to find out more about our world through more or less scientific means.
Yes, but my concern is, what do I do when those scientific means suggest that the church I'm at doesn't really appear to agree with the Christianity of the Early Church? Is it acceptable to hold a faith that appears to have been "muddled out" sixteen centuries after the fact?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yes, and this technical point is important. The things they hold to be authoritative or "infallible" are reported or witnessed by the Church Fathers, but definitely not everything the Church Fathers wrote or said.

Please do not junk up this issue by making a point out of the Church Fathers not being considered authoritative when commenting on the weather or something else off the subject.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in? :anguished:

I'm more inclined to believe the church is wrong, and start over by examining the fruit that comes from the various interpretations.

At the same time, faith, trust, belief is part of the life, so some questions will not have an answer ... like ever.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Why should a church in 21st century America resemble in every way a church in 2nd century Asia minor? Shouldn't there be some room for cultural expression and liberty? We should never ignore history or throw it out as useless. But why should something be infallible simply because it is old? The only infallible source of truth is God's word.

In the modern world we face new ethical challenges and questions that were completely foreign to the iron age. For instance, genetic engineering or climate change. If we stick to a kind of patristic fundamentalism, that could be problematic for the Church and society as a whole.

Even John Henry Cardinal Newman understood that the Church must be able to articulate its message in every age in a way that people could understand it. That's why some Catholics at the time were very suspicious of him as a modernist, because in some ways he was.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Please do not junk up this issue by making a point out of the Church Fathers not being considered authoritative when commenting on the weather or something else off the subject.
What in the world are you talking about? I'm referring directly to a claim you've repeatedly made and I've asked you to support (and you haven't).
 
  • Like
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, but my concern is, what do I do when those scientific means suggest that the church I'm at doesn't really appear to agree with the Christianity of the Early Church? Is it acceptable to hold a faith that appears to have been "muddled out" sixteen centuries after the fact?

If you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior, that is more or less sufficient for you to be saved. However, you may be wanting to look for a church that you feel called to personally, and that's all OK too (nobody should ignore God's calling, certainly). Perhaps you need a more liturgical church steeped in history. But that's different from arguing that one particular church is the only true church in some objective sense.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Chris V++
Upvote 0