Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Mick116]

Also when it was declared that Rome would be Christian it was not of Christ but of a political matter.. Read History to find this out..

The catholic Church is more than Rome. The word "catholic" hints at universality, fullness and completeness. It is the local expression of the universal Church. By the time of the first ecumenical council, the catholic Church extended from Jerusalem to Rome, Antioch, Britain, Egypt, Jerusalem, India, Greece and Syria.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Actually read more into the History of the CC.. The CC was not even heard of until Constatine declared Rome to be Christian.. But then when he did this he would not give up his idols and mingled them. Thus the RCC was born.. There is not much evidence that those that the CC declare are the ecf even had contact with the Apostles..

You will find the Christian Church being Catholic since Apostolic times.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).


The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).


The Muratorian Canon
"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).


Tertullian
"Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).


Cyprian of Carthage
"They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected.
. . . There [in John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another" (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).

 

[MamaZ]

(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

This date is pretty telling to me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This date is pretty telling to me.

And it should be.

John the Apostle died around 100 AD and the date is estimated to 110 AD. The usage of the word catholic shows it was commonly understood and so it had to have been in use for some time.

Experts say that Catholic (much like Christian) was a word that came into popular use during the period that the Apsotles were alive (especially John).

This would show that Catholic was used to name and describe the Chrsitian Church even during Apostolic times and much earlier then Constantine.

 

[MamaZ]

I don't have a problem with ecf if they keep to the teachings of the Apostles.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don't have a problem with ecf if they keep to the teachings of the Apostles.

For someone who claims to stick to the teachings of the Apostles you sure are far from it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

For someone who claims to stick to the teachings of the Apostles you sure are far from it.

A truly telling example of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[MamaZ]

For someone who claims to stick to the teachings of the Apostles you sure are far from it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Bump.......interesting thread!!!

 

[WarriorAngel]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

They didnt give different interpretations. They just give different ones from today's ideas.

Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

Well, they certainly had a better clue than joe smoe down the road in 2008. Know what i mean?

And it should be.

John the Apostle died around 100 AD and the date is estimated to 110 AD. The usage of the word catholic shows it was commonly understood and so it had to have been in use for some time.

Experts say that Catholic (much like Christian) was a word that came into popular use during the period that the Apsotles were alive (especially John).

This would show that Catholic was used to name and describe the Chrsitian Church even during Apostolic times and much earlier then Constantine.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

They didnt give different interpretations. They just give different ones from today's ideas.

Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

Well, they certainly had a better clue than joe smoe down the road in 2008. Know what i mean?

And it should be.

John the Apostle died around 100 AD and the date is estimated to 110 AD. The usage of the word catholic shows it was commonly understood and so it had to have been in use for some time.

Experts say that Catholic (much like Christian) was a word that came into popular use during the period that the Apsotles were alive (especially John).

This would show that Catholic was used to name and describe the Chrsitian Church even during Apostolic times and much earlier then Constantine.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

They didnt give different interpretations. They just give different ones from today's ideas.

Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

Well, they certainly had a better clue than joe smoe down the road in 2008. Know what i mean?

And it should be.

John the Apostle died around 100 AD and the date is estimated to 110 AD. The usage of the word catholic shows it was commonly understood and so it had to have been in use for some time.

Experts say that Catholic (much like Christian) was a word that came into popular use during the period that the Apsotles were alive (especially John).

This would show that Catholic was used to name and describe the Chrsitian Church even during Apostolic times and much earlier then Constantine.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

John the Apostle died around 100 AD and the date is estimated to 110 AD. The usage of the word catholic shows it was commonly understood and so it had to have been in use for some time.

Pure conjuncture along with all the other datings of when the Apostles died.
I am actually wondering if any were around after the destruction of Jerusalem, as no where in the whole NT/NC is that event, mentioned, except "MAYBE" in Revelation. Thoughts?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7164949&page=2
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

 

[Trento]

Pure conjuncture along with all the other datings of when the Apostles died.
I am actually wondering if any were around after the destruction of Jerusalem, as no where in the whole NT/NC is that event, mentioned, except "MAYBE" in Revelation. Thoughts?

A couple.
The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr refers to "John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as a witness who had lived "with us", that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus writes in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and expressly writes that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. haer., III, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we can estimate to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96).
According to Tertullian's testimony After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.

 

[Ramon96]

A couple.
The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr refers to "John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as a witness who had lived "with us", that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus writes in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and expressly writes that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. haer., III, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we can estimate to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96).
According to Tertullian's testimony After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.

Yes, another universal recognize and undoubted tradition was that Saint Peter was martyr in Rome, where he started the Church of Rome [Saint Paul being Co-Founder]. This is testify by all the Early Christians [1st-8th Centuries], ancient Historians [such as Eusebius], and modern scholarship [scientific data as well] have proven this tradition is valid. The fact is that most of what we know about "when, where and how" the Holy Apostles died comes from the Holy Fathers of the Church, especially the Apostolic Fathers. And none have proven that what they say happened to the Holy Apostles are incorrect.

Aside from this, what the Holy Fathers have to say is more important and authoritative in what some preachers say 2,000 years later. Most were disciples of the Holy Apostles, and they defended the Apostolic Faith through several Ecumenical Councils. There were many things that the Holy Fathers were in "agreement" [things like Christ, Salvation, the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, infant baptism , etc] and it is these doctrines that we Orthodox Christians held as authentic doctrines passed along through generations by the Holy Apostles. There is no doubt that many of the Fathers held in personal opinions, but this is besides the point. We need to go back to the faith of the Early Church [1st-8th Centuries] and stop listening what these "preachers" 2,000 years later say. If we compare what the Early Christians taught, we quickly find out that Protestant [that includes "non-denominational" churches] Churches today has strayed too much from the faith of the Early Church and they all follow doctrines and interpretation of Scriptures that first appeared in the 1500s and after. I believe this was a interesting question

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[MamaZ]

NO Matter what the ECF had to say we can find the truth written right in the pages of scripture. For it is the Holy Spirit who teaches the elect the truth.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Aside from this, what the Holy Fathers have to say is more important and authoritative in what some preachers say 2,000 years later.

For myself, I put little stock in any of their interpretations of the Scriptures.

Matt 7:27 And descended the rains and the streams and blow the winds and they toward-strike the House, that, and she falls/epesen <4098> (5627) and was the fall of her Great.

Reve 14:8 And another messenger, second-one, follows saying "she falls/epesen <4098> (5627), she falls, Babylon the Great, the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations. [Jeremiah 51:8]

 

[MamaZ]

Aside from this, what the Holy Fathers have to say is more important and authoritative in what some preachers say 2,000 years later. Most were disciples of the Holy Apostles, and they defended the Apostolic Faith through several Ecumenical Councils. There were many things that the Holy Fathers were in "agreement" [things like Christ, Salvation, the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, infant baptism , etc] and it is these doctrines that we Orthodox Christians held as authentic doctrines passed along through generations by the Holy Apostles. There is no doubt that many of the Fathers held in personal opinions, but this is besides the point. We need to go back to the faith of the Early Church [1st-8th Centuries] and stop listening what these "preachers" 2,000 years later say. If we compare what the Early Christians taught, we quickly find out that Protestant [that includes "non-denominational" churches] Churches today has strayed too much from the faith of the Early Church and they all follow doctrines and interpretation of Scriptures that first appeared in the 1500s and after. I believe this was a interesting question

I would question whether or not you believe that the Holy Spirit is still the teacher. For scripture still is in authority over the church and it is not the church that is in authority over the scripture. For what is written is inspired of God and not man. Therefore it is also the Holy Spirit that is the teacher and not man. Therefore the ECF are not the provider of the Holy Spirit but God is and the ECF are not the provider of scripture God is.. So now the concern is who will we listen to. Man or God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I would question whether or not you believe that the Holy Spirit is still the teacher. For scripture still is in authority over the church and it is not the church that is in authority over the scripture. For what is written is inspired of God and not man. Therefore it is also the Holy Spirit that is the teacher and not man. Therefore the ECF are not the provider of the Holy Spirit but God is and the ECF are not the provider of scripture God is.. So now the concern is who will we listen to. Man or God.

The RCC views the Great City in Revelation as old pagan Rome, so what do ya expect?

 

[MamaZ]

The RCC views the Great City in Revelation as old pagan Rome, so what do ya expect?

Hoping some truth would seep into them.. LOL