Wounded?

[isshinwhat]

...but the idea that no one questioned the teachings of the church is a bit too much for me at this point.

I am sure that people questioned the Church's teachings. What you have to look at, though, is what they did when the Church spoke. The vast majority conceded to the constant teaching of the Church, while others remained obstinate and drifted into history (Arius, for instance). History is a very interesting thing, and the best way to study it is to read the articles, themselves.

I would begin with Clement of Rome and his First Epistle. Clement was mentioned in Philippians 4:3 and is an important source for early teaching.

Then I would go to Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John, and read his Epistle to the Philippians. A beautiful book by a beautiful man of God.

Next, I would read Ignatius of Antioch's writings Epistle to the Smyraeans, Epistle to the Romans, Epistle to Polycarp, and Epistle to the Magnesians. Ignatius was another disciple of the Apostle John, and was ordained by Peter. There is a pious story which may or may not be true that Ignatius was the child which Jesus drew to his lap in Matthew 18:2-4.

Next, both Adversus haereses by Irenaeus of Lyons and the First Apology andSecond Apology, as well as the Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr are important texts, especially Against Heresies by Irenaeus, as it deals specifically with pitting orthodoxy against heresy.

And last, but definately not least, The Didache (c. 100).

There you go, Don. That is a good start, and it is the texts themselves, not a historical interpretation of them. None of them are overly long, so they should read quickly. There is a lot of imformation there, though, so beware. Take care, brother.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Neal-

Can I copy this down for later reprinting? Its an excellent guide to the early writings with links.

Nice!

 

[Reformationist]

I would show Apostolic Succession in Acts.

I know that it would be impossible for you to believe otherwise but I will tell you that I don't think Apostolic succession a valid thing. I think that office was contained to a certain period of history to serve a certain purpose. These were people who received graces from God that even you will acknowledge your "Apostles" of today don't receive.

Then I would show early Christian writings that demonstrate this historical reality.

Can you explain to me the process and belief behind Apostolic succession? Did each Apostle appoint successors or was it just Peter?

 

[Reformationist]

Are you honestly seeking knowledge about the early Church?

If so, then read some of these writings in the words of the early Church with no Catholic bias or commentary to turn you off.

Early Christian Writings

If you don't want to buy it, there are copies of these writings online.

If you truly care, I will spend the time to look up the links, but you have to read them if I do.

I would very much appreciate it. I promise that I will read them as I find the opportunity. I don't know how much material we're talking about so you'll have to give me a little leeway.

God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

I am sure that people questioned the Church's teachings. What you have to look at, though, is what they did when the Church spoke. The vast majority conceded to the constant teaching of the Church, while others remained obstinate and drifted into history (Arius, for instance). History is a very interesting thing, and the best way to study it is to read the articles, themselves.

I would begin with Clement of Rome and his First Epistle. Clement was mentioned in Philippians 4:3 and is an important source for early teaching.

Then I would go to Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John, and read his Epistle to the Philippians. A beautiful book by a beautiful man of God.

Next, I would read Ignatius of Antioch's writings Epistle to the Smyraeans, Epistle to the Romans, Epistle to Polycarp, and Epistle to the Magnesians. Ignatius was another disciple of the Apostle John, and was ordained by Peter. There is a pious story which may or may not be true that Ignatius was the child which Jesus drew to his lap in Matthew 18:2-4.

Next, both Adversus haereses by Irenaeus of Lyons and the First Apology andSecond Apology, as well as the Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr are important texts, especially Against Heresies by Irenaeus, as it deals specifically with pitting orthodoxy against heresy.

And last, but definately not least, The Didache (c. 100).

There you go, Don. That is a good start, and it is the texts themselves, not a historical interpretation of them. None of them are overly long, so they should read quickly. There is a lot of imformation there, though, so beware. Take care, brother.

God Bless,

Neal

As always, thank you so much for your time and godly efforts. I will try to do your efforts justice by reading them with as clear a mind as possible.

One question though. Does your church consider these writings divine revelation, as Scripture is? IOW, are they considered infallible?

Thanks,
Don

 

[Benedicta00]

Not at all. I don't think the Christian church of the first 1500 years spread the teachings that you believe. I certainly don't think the Apostles taught what you believe.

That is what I am talking about, history can not deny this, it was the Catholic Church and it was the Catholic teaching that was being taught. It was not Protestantism and the historical councils of the times can prove this. Can you cite for me of any source at all this other church that went around teaching something different? If you wish to believe the Church got it all wrong then I respect that but to say what was taught for 1500 years wasn't Catholicism is simply not true.

Well, that's convenient.

Are you saying you believe in the heresies? Like Arianism for one? There was always people trying to challenge the Church's authority and they used the scripture writings to do it but since the faith is apostolic, we know that, by the faith that was left with us, i.e. deposit of faith, what is heresy, and what isn't. How else do you think God would protect the Church from error? It isn't the bible because as you see many use that and there are many different interpretations.

Authority is different than infallibility. My Pastor has the authority to preach the Gospel. He is not, however, incapable of error.

And that is the light we see the ECF in. They do not give us the faith, they received it and past it down and died for it. Where do you think they received the faith they wrote about from? They used whatever scriptures that were available but a lot of what you see them writing about can not be found in scripture explicitly.

I guess I'll need to study that.

You really should because it is undeniable. This is what the Catholic Church taught through each era. We are the authority who can say what they wrote about was truth or error.

Absolutely. I don't think that the teachings of your church are remotely like the teachings of the Apostles.

Do you think we started out teaching the "truth" and we somewhere went off track or do you think the first Church with the office of bishops holding the apostles seat, was some entirely different Church? Not the west or the east "Catholics?"

Do you believe in the "Hidden Parallel Church" theory? If so, can you cite it? Is it documented, can you prove they existed and can you prove that the early Christians for the first 3 centuries were holding to Protestant beliefs when they went underground -with no bible- and lived in the catacombs where we see the art work they left behind, who’s art depicted them celebrating Mass and they honored the martyrs that died for the faith and we see the hidden art that symbolizes the Catholic faith.

This is what I am talking about, when you study history, not even Catholic specific, you can't deny that the Christian faith was fully Catholic.

Not sure I understand. THE Church is still THE Church. Your beliefs represent one groups understanding of the Gospel. Nothing more.

Again, if you do not believe that early Church was not fully Catholic then can you share with me from any source at all the historical account of Christian history.

No one is infallible. Preaching infallibly, IMO, was a divine grace that was reserved for the office of Apostle.

It was and you do not think the God's plan was to continue this divine grace through their successors?

I believe the reformers because I think their teachings most accurately reflect the glory of God. I think that Scripture is too clear on too many points to be understood the way you understand it.

And the next guy says the same thing, and then there are those that really do not see what you see so clearly, so what is the thing that makes you right over every one else? The bible is the true written down word of the God but it is part of a whole, it is not all there is and the fact that it can not be interpreted infallibly by any one group of believes objectively proves this.

You're advising me that I should look up the Protestant reformation and John Calvin if I want to learn about the church's history? Okay.

Yea, because you will see why the reformation. It was more political than religious and you can see for yourself the existence of the Catholic Church and Christendom was never being denied. The reformers raised up against it, they never claimed it wasn’t the faith that was taught for all those centuries.

 

[Benedicta00]

Don,

The reason why I asked how much you knew about St. Patrick is because it was him by the grace of God who converted a whole country to Christianity (Ireland) and he did it with no bible.

This is how Christianity survived for the first few hundred years and not only survived but grew. It was not the bible that accomplished this, it was the Church because Christ sent her out to teach and make disciples. History can not disprove this.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Don,

The reason why I asked how much you knew about St. Patrick is because it was him by the grace of God who converted a whole country to Christianity (Ireland) and he did it with no bible.

This is how Christianity survived for the first few hundred years and not only survived but grew. It was not the bible that accomplished this, it was the Church because Christ sent her out to teach and make disciples. History can not disprove this.

Preach it sister!

 

[isshinwhat]

One question though. Does your church consider these writings divine revelation, as Scripture is? IOW, are they considered infallible?

No. They do bear witness to certain, constant teachings of the early Church which are inerrant, but the writings themselves are not considered infallible. Certain letters of the ones I listed were once considered Canonical by some groups, and there was a strong push for the Clementine letter and the Didache to be included in Scripture, but the Church and the Holy Spirit didn't see fit to do so, although they are both orthodox.

Neal-

Can I copy this down for later reprinting? Its an excellent guide to the early writings with links.

Certainly.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Benedicta00]

No. They do bear witness to certain, constant teachings of the early Church which are inerrant, but the writings themselves are not considered infallible. Certain letters of the ones I listed were once considered Canonical by some groups, and there was a strong push for the Clementine letter and the Didache to be included in Scripture, but the Church and the Holy Spirit didn't see fit to do so, although they are both orthodox.

Neal,

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the reason because they felt that the books that were chosen was enough and it wasn’t necessary to included any more?

 

[isshinwhat]

Michelle,

I have never heard that. I would say they could not vouch for its inspiration as they could the others, but I could be wrong.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Benedicta00]

Michelle,

I have never heard that. I would say they could not vouch for its inspiration as they could the others, but I could be wrong.

God Bless,

Neal

Thanks. I’m trying to recall where I heard it. I think it was said on EWTN by one of the priest but I only vaguely recall hearing that. I may have evn read it somewhere.

 

[Reformationist]

That is what I am talking about, history can not deny this, it was the Catholic Church and it was the Catholic teaching that was being taught.

Hmm...I'm am at a loss as to how to discuss this without violating forum rules. You see, I can either disagree with you and boarder on debating in a non-debate forum, thereby violating the rules, or, I must agree with you which would mean that I must embrace Catholicism, something I don't feel that I'm prepared to do.

I hope it will suffice to say that I must learn more about this matter before I am prepared to make a dicision. I hope you can appreciate the gravity of this for me. We are talking about my possible abandonment of all that I hold to be true. I am not sure if you were raised to believe what you now believe but speaking as a Protestant it is not so simple as just changing one's mind.

Additionally, if I'm being completely open and honest I cannot say that finding out that the leaders of the early church taught what you believe would be enough. I know that you regularly point out that it seems impossible that Christ would let untruths be taught for 1500 years but this, to me, does not necessarily mean it didn't happen. As you know, I am a strong believer in the constancy and sovereignty of the Lord. I have never been of the belief that our grasp of Scripture or our knowledge of church history or our membership in a religious group saves us. I attribute every aspect of my salvation to the efficacy of Christ's work in appeasing the wrath of God. So, while I can understand how improbable it may seem to you that your beloved church has incorrectly taught the Word for so long I cannot claim that it is impossible.

I strongly believe that many people have been saved in the Catholic faith and that many have been saved outside of it. I do not think that God's ability to gather His flock is regulated or limited by the limitations inherent to His creation.

Can you cite for me of any source at all this other church that went around teaching something different?

As I've already pointed out, I am not familiar with church history. I do not believe that the original members of Christ's church, the Apostles, taught what you believe. Of course, I have some serious studying to do.

If you wish to believe the Church got it all wrong then I respect that but to say what was taught for 1500 years wasn't Catholicism is simply not true.

Michelle, it is these kind of statements that lead me to believe you have studied Christian history indepth. You are very confident of your church's roots. I applaud that. But, I must ask, have you studied church history on your own to see if their claims are true or do you just study what they tell you to study?

Are you saying you believe in the heresies? Like Arianism for one?

Not at all. Although, I know that you consider my views heretical so I guess it would be more accurate to clarify that I don't support the view of Arianism but I do have faith in views that your church labels heretical.

There was always people trying to challenge the Church's authority and they used the scripture writings to do it but since the faith is apostolic, we know that, by the faith that was left with us, i.e. deposit of faith, what is heresy, and what isn't.

What form does this "deposit of faith" take? For instance, prior to all these writings of the church fathers or, at least, in their earlier stages, how would the church leadership determine that someone's view was heretical?

How else do you think God would protect the Church from error?

I am not of the belief that God's church was protected from error. I believe that God protected them in certain areas from error but that was not a universal gift of infallibility or even one that extends to this day in only certain areas.

It isn't the bible because as you see many use that and there are many different interpretations.

Nor do I claim that just having the Bible protects someone from an inaccurate understanding.

And that is the light we see the ECF in. They do not give us the faith, they received it and past it down and died for it. Where do you think they received the faith they wrote about from? They used whatever scriptures that were available but a lot of what you see them writing about can not be found in scripture explicitly.

Okay. So how do you know that the writings they passed down weren't inaccurate understandings of Scripture?

You really should because it is undeniable. This is what the Catholic Church taught through each era. We are the authority who can say what they wrote about was truth or error.

Well, that remains to be seen.

Do you think we started out teaching the "truth" and we somewhere went off track or do you think the first Church with the office of bishops holding the apostles seat, was some entirely different Church? Not the west or the east "Catholics?"

Well, first off, I don't think the "first church" was the Catholics, east or west. I think it was the Apostles. As to what they taught, I read that regularly. Granted, I may misunderstand it but I am privvy to what they actually wrote.

Do you believe in the "Hidden Parallel Church" theory?

No. I believe there was the Christian church and then there were those who were in error.

and we see the hidden art that symbolizes the Catholic faith.

No offense Michelle but you'd think that anything that represented your beliefs had to have been true. If the Pharisees had drawn pictures of honoring Mary by placing statues in their synagogues you would think that was a symbol of truth, even though everything else they taught was in error.

This is what I am talking about, when you study history, not even Catholic specific, you can't deny that the Christian faith was fully Catholic.

By "fully Catholic" do you mean that it had the same traditions that you practice today? That it held the same beliefs?

Again, if you do not believe that early Church was not fully Catholic then can you share with me from any source at all the historical account of Christian history.

Well, there's the Bible, which I, at this time, think clearly contradicts some teachings of your faith. Anything after that was the writings of people not protected from error.

It was and you do not think the God's plan was to continue this divine grace through their successors?

Why would I think that? Is there anything in the Bible to lead me to believe that any measure of infallibility was passed on, as if it's some genetic trait of a church office? I know you rely heavily on your interpretation of Matthew 16:18 but I do not believe that implies any measure of infallibility.

And the next guy says the same thing, and then there are those that really do not see what you see so clearly, so what is the thing that makes you right over every one else?

We have three possibilities to consider. One, Catholics are right and everyone else is wrong. Two, some Protestant belief is right and everyone else, to include Catholics, is wrong. Three, everyone is wrong. I don't believe there is anything in this life that can show any of us that we are completely right and that everyone else is completely wrong because I don't believe that to be the case. I do believe that the views of John Calvin most accurately reflect the Truths of the Gospel. But, aside from salvation being completely by the grace of God, there is nothing that I feel I absolutely have to be right on. I could be in error about many things, so long as salvation by grace is true.

The bible is the true written down word of the God but it is part of a whole, it is not all there is and the fact that it can not be interpreted infallibly by any one group of believes objectively proves this.

If you believe that no one group can infallibly interpret the Gospel then how do you know that your beliefs are biblically accurate?

Yea, because you will see why the reformation. It was more political than religious and you can see for yourself the existence of the Catholic Church and Christendom was never being denied. The reformers raised up against it, they never claimed it wasn?t the faith that was taught for all those centuries.

So your saying that everything that I believe to be true is the product of political corruption? Nice.

If the reformers acknowledged that the Christian church taught the Catholic faith until the time of the reformation did they also say that the Christian church had taught in error for 1500 years?