Early Church Fathers..

[HisBelovedMelody]

contradict each other. I noticed lately, that as people ask us to read the ECF's and we do, find stuff, post and ask questions about it....that all the sudden, some don't like that..well...this person came along, and corrected/clarified that statement so it doesn't really mean what he said, cause this other person came along and made it right....has anyone else seen this?? It makes me laugh! So read them (ECF) but don't believe it cause some one else later comes along and 'clarifies' it all and makes it better....something wrong with the picture.

 

[BigNorsk]

It is a tangled web. You didn't even mention some of the difficulties.

Things like either many fathers wrote nothing, or we just don't have what they wrote.

Also, it appears that more than a few had things added to or altered in their writings by others. Available manuscripts often disagree with each other to fairly large extents.

Add to that that several people are considered both an early church father, and a heretic.

There is clearly much norming that has occurred in the understanding of the early fathers, and a lot of drift in positions.

Marv

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

That is what cracks me up...and yet we "protestants" don't believe in the validity of these works because we see the glaring mistakes...amazes me. It just cracks me up

 

[tadoflamb]

50,000+ Protestant denominations and sects and their personal interpretations of scripture doesn't make much sense either. Just my take as a convert.

Pax,

Tad

 

[Cribstyl]

50,000+ Protestant denominations and sects aren't no bargain either.

That's a stretch of truth that you need to claim because you'd even deny the claims of other socalled Catholic Churches.

Dont tell me....your church is the #1 and only but let's not jack this thread, start your own.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

50,000+ Protestant denominations and sects and their personal interpretations of scripture doesn't make much sense either. Just my take as a convert.

Pax,

Tad

could you please list all these 'denominations' please?? I am SO sick to death of hearing this. The catholic denomination IS NOT the ONLY 'truth' church. SORRY. You can't even get the ECF writings to match up! THAT is what this thread is about. HOW contradicting it is...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by tadoflamb
50,000+ Protestant denominations and sects and their personal interpretations of scripture doesn't make much sense either. Just my take as a convert.

Pax, Tad

Don't forget the divisions of the catholics and orthodoxs, along with equally bad translations among Christianity.

Back in those early days, they didn't really have the greek/hebrew study resources we have today to study the Word. Peace

http://www.christianforums.com/t4629874-what-about-the-court-in-revelation-112.html

naos (Strong's 3485) occurs 46 times in 40 verses:

(Young) John 2:20 The Jews, therefore, said, `Forty and six years was this Sanctuary/naoV <3485> building, and wilt thou in three days raise it up?'

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Add to that that several people are considered both an early church father, and a heretic.

Namely Tertullian and Origen.

vbmenu_register("postmenu_32611221", true);

50,000+ Protestant denominations and sects and their personal interpretations of scripture doesn't make much sense either.

I normally come rushing to defend all things high church, orthodox, and catholic, but this is one of those that gets me.

There really are just seven or eight basic Protestant traditions. There might be multiple denominations within those traditions, but that's generally a matter of dividing over minute issues of doctrine where Catholics can have freedom. It's also over ego-issues that wouldn't divide Catholic parishes.

 

[B16uRock]

contradict each other. I noticed lately, that as people ask us to read the ECF's and we do, find stuff, post and ask questions about it....that all the sudden, some don't like that..well...this person came along, and corrected/clarified that statement so it doesn't really mean what he said, cause this other person came along and made it right....has anyone else seen this?? It makes me laugh! So read them (ECF) but don't believe it cause some one else later comes along and 'clarifies' it all and makes it better....something wrong with the picture.

I am not really sure what you mean, by the statement above, so I am going out on a limb. Often in the writings of the ECFs, and some subsequent saints that have lived thru the 2000 years of history of the Church, it has been necessary to present to the audience of a certain time, the intent of the orginal writer, because of the usage of archaic language. Orginal intent or meanings of idioms, expressions and metaphors don't always, survive intact thru the ages.

 

[Trento]

contradict each other. I noticed lately, that as people ask us to read the ECF's and we do, find stuff, post and ask questions about it....that all the sudden, some don't like that..well...this person came along, and corrected/clarified that statement so it doesn't really mean what he said, cause this other person came along and made it right....has anyone else seen this?? It makes me laugh! So read them (ECF) but don't believe it cause some one else later comes along and 'clarifies' it all and makes it better....something wrong with the picture.

The Fathers as the successors of the apostles, the closest source to the apostolic teaching and tradition, and therefore authoritative.The Church has never understood or taught that unanimous consent means that the Fathers are individually infallible or that various Fathers have never held an alternative opinion. Any given passage of scripture may have several valid applications and they were all appropriated by the Fathers depending on the matter at hand. Thus, a Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter's confession as the Rock. This in not unusual or unexpected. It certainly does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the unanimous consent of the Fathers. To understand what the Church means when she is bound by the unanimous consent of the Fathers is that she cannot, has not, and does not contradict Herself. She can develop doctrine, but she cannot deny what is organically Her heritage and the foundation of her existence in the Scriptures, the Tradition and the Magisterium. The Church does not claim that all her "authority rests" on the consent of the Fathers. It rests on several things including Scripture; the Fathers are one element of this foundation.

The Catholic Church has organically grown up from the apostles and the Fathers. To say that it does not agree with them is absurd. Now, what is the unanimous consent of the Fathers? The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary gives a good simple definition:

• When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.

• The word "unanimous" comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind. "Consent", as was used when coined means "to be of the same mind or opinion." Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have "unanimous consent."

I woud advise you to do what this Protestant Patristic scholar suggests.

Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity (A.D. 70 AD),

Next to the Holy Scriptures, which are themselves a history and depository of divine revelation, there is no stronger proof of the continual presence of Christ with his people, no more thorough vindication of Christianity, no richer source of spiritual wisdom and experience, no deeper incentive to virtue and piety, than the history of Christ's kingdom. Every age has a message from God to man, which is of the greatest importance for man to understand.”
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The early Church fathers steered this young church through turbulent cultural and mythological currents of the world around them. Their writings provided guidance and assurance to early Christians whose faith was not only doctrinally challenged, since copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. Contemporary believers will find in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
[/FONT]

 

[Rhamiel]

Yea never believe people who lived a few generations after Christ and had their faith persecuted, they wrong, just follow the teachings of your pastor, because a modern pastor living in the Global North will know a lot more about what the bible is trying to say then some Mediterranean Bishop from A.D. 97. Oh wait we have the Holy Ghost to guide us, the Holy Ghost was invented during the industrial revolution right? Back then they just had superstition. We definitely know more then PEOPLR WHO WERE TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLES!!!
The modern innovations are glaring when you look at what the early Church Fathers taught. First of all the idea of Church was present, as was the recognition of Jesus&#8217; Bodily presence in the sacraments. Two things which are much maligned by &#8220;moderns&#8221;.

 

[HisKid1973]

I think everyone would agree that just sticking with the scriptures is a safe place to be...We have His gospel message to find Him and the scriptures supply what we need to mature in the faith..pax..Kim

 

[Merciel]

I think everyone would agree that just sticking with the scriptures is a safe place to be...We have His gospel message to find Him and the scriptures supply what we need to mature in the faith..pax..Kim

Personally, I think if people came into the faith with just the Bible and nothing more (devotions, commentary, bible studies, pastors, all of which are not unanimous all around the world), there would be much less unity among Christians than there is.

 

[HisKid1973]

Personally, I think if people came into the faith with just the Bible and nothing more (, all of which are not unanimous all around the world), there would be much less unity among Christians than there is.

Wouldn't you say the"devotions, commentary, bible studies, pastors" have the scriptures as the central theme?

 

[Merciel]

Wouldn't you say the"devotions, commentary, bible studies, pastors" have the scriptures as the central theme?

But they still differ as much as the early church fathers did.

 

[sunlover1]

But they still differ as much as the early church fathers did.

Right.

Does anyone know if there is a list
of the ECF?

 

[IamAdopted]

Personally, I think if people came into the faith with just the Bible and nothing more (devotions, commentary, bible studies, pastors, all of which are not unanimous all around the world), there would be much less unity among Christians than there is.

Don't you think that if someone came through Christ through reading the bible that God would lead this person to a church family to help him grow in the faith of His written word? I do. I know my Father would put this person where he or she needed to be. For God is so faithful .

 

[Merciel]

Don't you think that if someone came through Christ through reading the bible that God would lead this person to a church family to help him grow in the faith of His written word? I do. I know my Father would put this person where he or she needed to be. For God is so faithful .

Yeah, but there are many different Christian families, and not all the families think that the others are part of the family.

 

[xristos.anesti]

Yea never believe people who lived a few generations after Christ and had their faith persecuted, they wrong, just follow the teachings of your pastor, because a modern pastor living in the Global North will know a lot more about what the bible is trying to say then some Mediterranean Bishop from A.D. 97. Oh wait we have the Holy Ghost to guide us, the Holy Ghost was invented during the industrial revolution right? Back then they just had superstition. We definitely know more then PEOPLR WHO WERE TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLES!!!
The modern innovations are glaring when you look at what the early Church Fathers taught. First of all the idea of Church was present, as was the recognition of Jesus’ Bodily presence in the sacraments. Two things which are much maligned by “moderns”.

So true.

 

[BrendanMark]

Right.

Does anyone know if there is a list
of the ECF?

There are many, and can be found using Google fairly easily. Unfortunately, I do not have enough posts to be able to give you any links. New Advent Church Fathers page is about the best I am able to do.