Why study of the fathers leads only to Catholicism and why I came Home to RCC

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
In my view ALL should study history and the early fathers and catholics particularly so that they no longer on the back foot when asked to justify what they believe.

Lets take one doctrine that points at catholicism , and no other church.

Transubstantiation. Look at what the earliest fathers have to say: some even taught by the apostles and see what they handed down.


Justin Martyr writing in around 150 could not have been clearer... when he said of the eucharist, body and blood:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)

Consubstantiation even is simply not consistent with that.
Memorialism is not consistent with that.
Clearly not just spiritual! or figurative!
Only the catholic church is consistent with the early church.
Except of course the orthodox, who fudge the issue...by regarding it as a mystery rather than declare as Justin Martyr did.

So was Justin Martyr apostate?
Not a bit of it.

Go back to ignatius writing to the Smyrneans around the turn of the first century.
Only decades after Christ.

He and polycarp disciples of John the apostle.

He says.. "confess the Eucharist to BE the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ"

He also says "Let that be deemed a proper eucharist which is administered either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it"
So only valid if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee.

And of the church itself " wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church"

So The early church was liturgical, sacramental, had a succcession priesthood, believed not just in real presence, but also transubstantiation, and believed in the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Councils said it. And it passed doctrine by tradition - handing down - the new testament came later.

It is also clearly consistent with such as corinthians 10:16 where Paul says that
"Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? "

The ONLY way you can accept ANY reformationist doctrine opposed to the catholic understanding of the eucharist is to suppose that Apostle John was apostate., and every one since, other than catholcis, .and do you really think our Lord would have permitted that, when promising us "the gates of hell will not prevail against it"?

The idea you can pick up a bible and interpret it your own way, is to deny christian history and the early church. It is also supreme arrogance on the part of those who think they know better than disciples of the apostles! Luther despaired of the monster he helped to create, founded on that belief.. Saying "there are now as many doctrines as heads" - and a little more insulting "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

I started as an anglican, then later evangelical.
Study of early fathers, proved most of what I was taught by reformationists was simply wrong. That is why I came home...to RCC
 
Last edited:

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I am truly glad God has led you to the RCC. I am also glad God led me away from it. May your walk with Christ be a blessed one.

Thanks for the answer.
Out of curiosity Jay - what church did you go to? And what is their view of eucharist?
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the answer.
Out of curiosity Jay - what church did you go to? And what is their view of eucharist?

Our church engages in communion in accordance with scripture. With respect to a comparison to the RCC, they do not follow the RC teaching of transubstantiation.
 
Upvote 0

Geralt

Unsurpassed Сasual Dating - Verified Women
Supporter
Apr 9, 2016
793
258
GB
Visit site
✟67,802.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
believe what you will.

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord." Ep2:19-21

the fathers and all those that came with them packaged by the rcc are NOT the foundation of the members of the household of God regardless if they claim to be. they are NOT in authority.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Our church engages in communion in accordance with scripture. With respect to a comparison to the RCC, they do not follow the RC teaching of transubstantiation.

Just after a friendly conversation, not a confrontation!
Which church is that? And what do you make of Justin Martyr, or indeed Ignatius?
They didn't have a new testament - only the teaching from John the apostle.
So an explanation of what he meant, handed to them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mary7
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just after a friendly conversation, not a confrontation!

No worries. I never thought otherwise, and appreciate the conversation.

Which church is that?

As a rule, I don't give out that kind of information on the internet. Not everyone on this site has good intentions.

And what do you make of Justin Martyr, or indeed Ignatius?
They didn't have a new testament - only the teaching from John the apostle.
So an explanation of what he meant, handed to them.

While I appreciate their writings, they are not the inspired word of God. I view them in that context.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
believe what you will.

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord." Ep2:19-21

the fathers and all those that came with them packaged by the rcc are NOT the foundation of the members of the household of God regardless if they claim to be. they are NOT in authority.
First, Ephesians 2:19-21 has always been Catholic teaching, you borrowed it from us.
Second, nobody claims the Early Church Fathers are the foundation of the household of God. That's just silly and you are ranting anger over nothing.
Third, it was the ECF that realized the full canon of the Bible in 397 AD.
Fourth, ECF's writings are not inspired, and no claim has ever been to that effect. They are authoritative.
Fourth, you are forced to dispense with them because none of them were Protestants.
Lastly, you need to take the ECF in their proper perspective: the role they played in the early church, and how to use them properly, and what value they are to today's Christianity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goatee
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But then...the early christians didnt have a bible.
So were certainly not sola scriptura..they were handed the faith by succession.

So that interpretation of the eucharist IS the one handed by the apostles.

Which is the point I was making in general. You cannot just take the words of scripture...you have to take the accepted meaning with them.

So when you say "inspired word of God", whether or not it is inspired depends on the interpretation used. In this case , that was certainly the meaning of eucharist handed down. So any who claim the interpretation is wrong, are saying the same of John the apostle. That is certainly a VERY bold position to take!

Just curious on your view of eucharist. Now you are "ex catholic"

One thing I discovered on my way through the revolving door, is very few cradle catholics, know WHY they believe what they believe...and they assume the "usual" anticatholic myth playbook have an element of truth, because they lack the knowledge to defend against them!

Even such as "Queen of Heaven" has sound biblical basis, but I will wager not more than 10 percent of catholics can explain why it is so. Which is sad they know so little about their own faith, and it is also why they are so easily led away.


No worries. I never thought otherwise, and appreciate the conversation.



As a rule, I don't give out that kind of information on the internet. Not everyone on this site has good intentions.



While I appreciate their writings, they are not the inspired word of God. I view them in that context.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mary7
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So when you say "inspired word of God", whether or not it is inspired depends on the interpretation used. In this case , that was certainly the meaning of eucharist handed down. So any who claim the interpretation is wrong, are saying the same of John the apostle. That is certainly a VERY bold position to take!

A couple points:

The fact that a particular writing may agree with scripture doesn't make it the inspired word of God. It makes it in agreement with that inspired word. If I post that salvation is by Christ alone, my post agrees with scripture (John 14:6). But my post itself is not the inspired word of God.

The Book of John is the inspired word of God. The writings of Justin Martyr and Ignatius are not. To place the later subordinate to the former is not at all a dangerous position to take. If one believes that scripture is the inspired word of God, it's the only position to take.

Just curious on your view of eucharist. Now you are "ex catholic"

Not trying to be evasive, but could you be more specific? Communion is a very broad subject in the RCC. If you would like to know my scriptural belief on a specific part of it, I'll do my best to answer.
 
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

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I asked you your view of the eucharist which is not a broad subject.

You either believe in real presence, and/or transubstantiation (as the early church did) - or still sacramental but the "fudge" that is consubstantiation. Or you believe in a spiritual or memorial version as many reformed churches do.

It was just a questions...no barbs intented.

I have pointed out the problem with sola scriptura. Without authority and tradition there are several interpretations possible of some of the text. Only ONE interpretation is the inspired word of god. Since they are mutually exclusive all other interpretations are false, so not the word of God. So unless you take scripture AND its inspired interpretation from tradition and authority, you do not have the word of God.So you do not have "sola dei verbum" if alll you have is scripture.

Sola scriptura is easily proven false from simple logic. If you hold true the proposition (you insert a defintion) but anything similar to "all necessary truth for salvation is in the bible" - then clearly the bible if it contains all truth, must contain that proposition which you holdas the most fundamental truth of all, for that proposition to be true. But it nowhere says so, disproving the proposition by simple logic..

Worse still for "sola scriptura (or solo)" adherents is the bible actually dismisses that proposition as false. Because it says...the "Pillar and foundation of truth is the church" (it does not say scripture) which is recognising the history , that the early church handed the faith down "b y word of mouth and letter " and Our Lord gave a means for the church to judge on interpretation when he gave successors of Peter, and the apostles jointly the power to "Bind and loose" . Which from history is a phrase the Jews used precisely for judging on religious doctrine. Jesus did not give us a new testament, that came later, he gave us apostles to teach.

And I quoted you what John taught Ignatius and Polycarp.

Anyway...... I have asked the question several ways.
I was just curious to know if you think Justin Martyr and Ignatius were right, and if not , so when you think the church apostasized. In order to believe other than the early church did you have to believe it apostazied, and in this case in the first few decades!

Just curious to know why you abandoned the teaching of the early church.
If you did..but then you havent told me what you do believe!

But you have clearly moved on from Catholicism, and they are the only ones who hold to the belief of the early church


A couple points:

The fact that a particular writing may agree with scripture doesn't make it the inspired word of God. It makes it in agreement with that inspired word. If I post that salvation is by Christ alone, my post agrees with scripture (John 14:6). But my post itself is not the inspired word of God.

The Book of John is the inspired word of God. The writings of Justin Martyr and Ignatius are not. To place the later subordinate to the former is not at all a dangerous position to take. If one believes that scripture is the inspired word of God, it's the only position to take.



Not trying to be evasive, but could you be more specific? Communion is a very broad subject in the RCC. If you would like to know my scriptural belief on a specific part of it, I'll do my best to answer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I asked you your view of the eucharist which is not a broad subject.

It actually is. Do you want to know if I believe that communion should be the central, pivotal event of a church service? Do you want to know if I believe that it must contain fermented wine (some mock the use of juice)? Do you want to know if I believe that communion is a sacrament necessary for salvation and that I am required to take it once per week or else I am in a state of mortal sin and will suffer eternal damnation if I don’t confess to and receive absolution from a priest? The list goes on. It’s a very broad subject.

You either believe in real presence, and/or transubstantiation (as the early church did) - or still sacramental but the "fudge" that is consubstantiation. Or you believe in a spiritual or memorial version as many reformed churches do.

It was just a questions...no barbs intented.

No barb taken. I want to make sure I’m answering the question you are asking. Do I believe that Jesus Christ is present when we engage in communion (Matthew 18:20)? Absolutely. Do I believe the bread and wine are chemically transformed into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ? No.

Only ONE interpretation is the inspired word of god.

I singled out that sentence because I think it sums up what a lot of Christians see as a major problem with the RCC, that they feel what is the inspired word of God is whatever they decree, not scripture itself. God is sovereign.

But you have clearly moved on from Catholicism, and they are the only ones who hold to the belief of the early church

I suspect the Orthadox church would disagree.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Jay...

It would have been quicker to List what you do believe , not what you consider are the questions!

You seem to disagree with the church fathers taught by the apostles - I gave the quotes - and the Eucharist handed down by them. I was curious to know how you reconcile that difference.

I can only comment that scripture is provably not enough without the meaning that is handed down, and clarified by authority, without which authority there would be no New Testament! But there's the thing: the Eucharist is central to Christianity, and study of it led me back to Rome.

For those who doubt trabsubstantiation, they have a lot of explaining to do on the overwhelming mass of forensic evidence surrounding the Eucharistic miracles, take tixtla, sokolka, legnica, buenos airies recently.

I think our Lord is trying to clear up a misunderstanding.
Notice how the miracles are often the result of the host treated without due reverence.

It actually is. Do you want to know if I believe that communion should be the central, pivotal event of a church service? Do you want to know if I believe that it must contain fermented wine (some mock the use of juice)? Do you want to know if I believe that communion is a sacrament necessary for salvation and that I am required to take it once per week or else I am in a state of mortal sin and will suffer eternal damnation if I don’t confess to and receive absolution from a priest? The list goes on. It’s a very broad subject.



No barb taken. I want to make sure I’m answering the question you are asking. Do I believe that Jesus Christ is present when we engage in communion (Matthew 18:20)? Absolutely. Do I believe the bread and wine are chemically transformed into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ? No.



I singled out that sentence because I think it sums up what a lot of Christians see as a major problem with the RCC, that they feel what is the inspired word of God is whatever they decree, not scripture itself. God is sovereign.



I suspect the Orthadox church would disagree.
 
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It would have been quicker to List what you do believe , not what you consider are the questions!

It would have been quicker for you to ask your specific question. ;)

You seem to disagree with the church fathers taught by the apostles - I gave the quotes - and the Eucharist handed down by them. I was curious to know how you reconcile that difference.

See post #10.

I can only comment that scripture is provably not enough without the meaning that is handed down, and clarified by authority, without which authority there would be no New Testament! But there's the thing: the Eucharist is central to Christianity, and study of it led me back to Rome.

If that’s your journey, then God bless. I truly am happy for you.

For those who doubt trabsubstantiation, they have a lot of explaining to do on the overwhelming mass of forensic evidence surrounding the Eucharistic miracles…

Not really.

I think our Lord is trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

Notice how the miracles are often the result of the host treated without due reverence.

That’s your opinion, and I certainly respect your right to it. Not everyone believes in the validity of these supposed miracles.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Not everyone believes in the validity of these supposed miracles.

And that is the problem I have with atheist pseudoscientists, indeed many in the scientific establishment, indeed many Christian groups.. They object on ideology without even looking at the evidence dispassionately. Science has the same bar, regardless of whether they "like" the direction evidence points.

Have you studied them?

It is worth you studying the forensic evidence - all credible labs.
The most recent have been intensively studied.
I have a substantial library of books and papers on them. And as an (ex) scientist I am convinced.
Impossible to fake the results.


re post 10. Your argument does not follow. If you remove the early fathers, you are not left with an alternative proposition (the one you appear to hold)....you are left with ambiguity. And therefore you or your church is filling the void with an opinion ( ie their tradition) , not the inspired word or sacred tradition you see in the fathers. You are also opposing the clear practice and belief of the early church. Regarding their works as "Uninspired" does not help with the fact you clearly contradict them, and by that contradict apostle John who taught them. I wondered how you rationalise the contradiction.

That is why christianity fractured into 10000 bits at the reformation. Without the anchor of tradition and authority, there are many mutually exclusive doctrines on all from baptism, eucharist, clergy, moral issues, marriage and so on, all with their own interpretation of the word, not Gods Interpretation of it. Almost all of them must be wrong. Because there can only be ONE truth out of the thousands of mutually exclusive variants of doctrine.

Anyway,lets move on.

I do suggest you study the forensic evidence for eucharistic miracles. That also puts a big question mark over all who consider the eucharist less than transubstantiation. There is a lot more evidence than you think!
 
Last edited:
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

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,730.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Except of course the orthodox, who fudge the issue...by regarding it as a mystery rather than declare as Justin Martyr did.
Where does Justin Martyr declare anything different to Orthodox belief?
 
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