What Did The Church Fathers Say About The Catholic Church?

[Katholikos]

QUOTE

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

END QUOTE

Irenaeus, who lived from c. A.D. 140 - c. 202, wrote this in his work [i]Against Heresies[/i] between A.D. 180 and 199. St. John, the last living Apostle, died c. 100.

Was it true then but not true now? Or, was it not true then and not true now?

Do you think the Catholic Church went astray from the teaching of the Apostles so soon after the death of Jesus? What about Mt 16:18 RSV, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it [Christ's Church]." What about Jesus' promise to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would be with them "always" (Jn 14, 15, 16)? And Jesus' own promise to be with the Apostles (and their successors) "always -- until the end of the world" (Mt 28:20 KJV)?

Likos

Reference: The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, William A. Jurgens

[dairygirl4u2c]

it was a play on words that wording "catholic". it was divine and man made. the divine part was the fact we were christian. the man made was how or structured ourselves, with rome as a head. when rome starting asserting infallibility and more erroneous power, the divine parted ways. or to look at it differently, people simply disagreed. much like they always have. see, rome today says that it was always been the catholic church. but there were always people dissenting and challenging its authority and basis. the CC just charaterizes it as heresies that no one would do. the heresies then is the same as today, nothing has changed. it's just a play on words to call it a heresy, to you its a heresy, but to others its a victory over falsehood.

the CC acts like the protestant reformation the end all. in fact, the reformation was simply big bc of the requirement to stop the false assertions it had been starting to make about its infallibility and other doctrines they disagreed with. at the time of hte reformation, they surely didn't have it all thought out, and prob just separated bc of things like sole fide, but looking back, they had basis in things they couldn't know then, about how rome didn't have a definitive basis to rule anyway. (they didn't have internet and things back then...) when scholars started llooking at the all the eivdence they agreed it's not definitive.

look here. if prots started to get together with a unified source, that don't mean it's divine like CC claims. it would be man made with the divineness being that they're christians. and pepole would dissent rightfully and break away if that source started claiming things that weren't true and that it had no basis to claim. even though prots wouldn't have a potential claim ot apostolic successtion, you have to agree theoretically the man made stuff is possible. then look at the evidence and reasonable minds can disagree.

Edited May 2, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[jckinsman]

Wow! What a topic to take on! One question,Is it permisable to self interpet what the holy spirit has sent forth? The writings of the early church fathers are a historical back up for what the church has always taught. Our own peronal dissent does not make what the church teaches and has taught any different from the onset! It is one foundation, that will never fold. We as humans, try as we may, to mess with it and tear it down , we can not. EVER. I think that if you stop your over thinking tactics,to oppose the church for one moment ,and just ask God what he wants ,not what you want. You will hear his voice! One church.......Not one thousand! JC

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, that's just one way to look at it.
another. if Jesus wanted to make the CC, that doesn't mean he wanted it to be infallible. that means the current CC is the one responsible for what it has done by claiming infallibility. it's like a husband and wife. the husband is suppose to be the head, and that is inspired by God, and the wife is to agree on the smaller things, but once he starts doing things that are out of line, the wife has no choice but to step out and not listen. you could say right now prot and catholics are simply on a separation, not divorced as that cannot be.

[RezaMikhaeil]

St. Mark also helped found the Roman Catholic Church, among the other original churches, doesn't prove nothing. Moreover I was curious what the original writing was titled, so I could read it in it's entirety.

Note: The original Roman See isnt the only original See, the See of St. Mark is in Egypt [among the other original rites]. The Roman See oversees churches [as it always has] just as the Coptic Rite is always the See of St. Mark, in which the Etheopian rite looks towards as their See.

Reza

Edited May 3, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Paddington]

St. Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch first. Didn't he lead them? If he did, I have to think he had successors there.
I want to know the Catholic answer for that.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1262886' date='May 2 2007, 09:03 PM']well, that's just one way to look at it.
another. if Jesus wanted to make the CC, that doesn't mean he wanted it to be infallible. that means the current CC is the one responsible for what it has done by claiming infallibility.[/quote]

It's the Holy Spirit -- God Himself -- the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity -- that's infallible, Dairygirl. God the Holy Spirit guides the Church (Jn 14, 15, 16). As a result, the Church cannot teach error in faith and morals. She can be wrong about baseball scores, but not about the Trinity or artificial birth control. Would Jesus found His Church and not ensure that she would always teach the Truth? Nope. I don't think so.

Christ said to His Apostles, the leaders of His Church, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). He promised to stay with the Apostles ALWAYS, to the end of the world (Mt 28:19-20 KJV). The Apostles aren't around and the end of the world has not yet come, so Jesus must have intended to stay to the end of the world with those who came after the Apostles -- the bishops, like Timothy and Titus and others and their successors. Since the Scriptures say that the Church has Jesus and the Holy Spirit always with her, I think they can be trusted, don't you?

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1263095' date='May 3 2007, 01:07 AM']St. Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch first. Didn't he lead them? If he did, I have to think he had successors there.
I want to know the Catholic answer for that.[/quote]

St. Peter founded the Syriac Orthodox Church in Antioch, along with St. Mark [and others]. The See of St. James is Antioch [if memory serves right], The See of St. Mark is in Egypt, The See of St. Peter is more disputed, Romans claim that but also the Syriac Orthodox [which I take no side on myself, so I chose not to debate that], etc.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263098' date='May 3 2007, 01:44 AM']It's the Holy Spirit -- God Himself -- the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity -- that's infallible, Dairygirl. God the Holy Spirit guides the Church (Jn 14, 15, 16). As a result, the Church cannot teach error in faith and morals. She can be wrong about baseball scores, but not about the Trinity or artificial birth control. Would Jesus found His Church and not ensure that she would always teach the Truth? Nope. I don't think so.

[code]That's also part of the problem, the original church is divided and as His Holiness Pope John Paul II once said, there's faults on both sides.[/code]

Christ said to His Apostles, the leaders of His Church, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). He promised to stay with the Apostles ALWAYS, to the end of the world (Mt 28:19-20 KJV). The Apostles aren't around and the end of the world has not yet come, so Jesus must have intended to stay to the end of the world with those who came after the Apostles -- the bishops, like Timothy and Titus and others and their successors. Since the Scriptures say that the Church has Jesus and the Holy Spirit always with her, I think they can be trusted, don't you?

[code]Agreed, they can be trusted but what people differ on is what came after the Great Schism. Roman Catholics claim that they are the truth Church, Copts that they are, and so on and so fourth. The only thing that everyone can agree upon is that the original rites once made up the original church, pre-schism [which is why people are working at uniting the church again].[/code]

Likos[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

**I think they can be trusted, don't you?
yes, but i look at the evidence and think that is not the way the world works. i think the CC has contradicted itself in the past, and am willing to again dialouge on this if you are willing to get academic.
i could say the same thing.. the holy spirit guides individuals. if it's something important, those who are trying follow will understand. you might say things like confession are important, and the fact people disagree shows it cannot be the case that it gides ppl individually. i say, you are creating the problem where there is none, confession isn't important, and you will see that eventually, and if you don't, you at least know the important things that really matter. so, the holy spirit guides us, and i think it can be trusted to do that, don't you?

(here you will say yes but the people i don't, then i will say i trust it but the pope i don't, etc etc)
this is simply an inherent judgment call difference, views of which cannot be reconciled, necessarily.

you might say in a way should't reply to these topics, because you're gearing this more for those who might be persuaded who haven't seen the evidence. but then, i'm always looking for someone to call me out, and challenge me on my scholarly and intellectual claims.

Edited May 3, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1263099' date='May 3 2007, 05:17 AM']St. Peter founded the Syriac Orthodox Church in Antioch, along with St. Mark [and others]. The See of St. James is Antioch [if memory serves right], The See of St. Mark is in Egypt, The See of St. Peter is more disputed, Romans claim that but also the Syriac Orthodox [which I take no side on myself, so I chose not to debate that], etc.

Reza[/quote]St. Peter did not found the Syriac Orthodox Church in Antioch. He founded the See of Antioch, which currently has multiple claimants:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Antioch#Current_patriarchs"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_...rent_patriarchs[/url]

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1263095' date='May 3 2007, 03:07 AM']St. Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch first. Didn't he lead them? If he did, I have to think he had successors there.
I want to know the Catholic answer for that.[/quote]

St. Peter himself was the "Pope" (the Chief Apostle, vicar (deputy) of Christ, and head of the universal Church) as long as he was alive, no matter where he was. I know of no office he held in Jerusalem, where the Apostle James was bishop. However, he served as (third?) Bishop of Antioch and ordained St. Ignatius of Antioch as his replacement when he left on his journey with St. Paul to Rome. He became Bishop of Rome, a Church which he and St. Paul founded. St. Peter remained Pope until his death, at which time his vacated office was filled by his successor, Linus. All of his successors (264 of them) have also been bishops of Rome.

Want the history of the term, "Pope" (Greek, [i]pappas[/i]: papa, father)?

Likos

[Paddington]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263324' date='May 3 2007, 05:23 PM']Want the history of the term, "Pope" (Greek, [i]pappas[/i]: papa, father)?

Likos[/quote]

Yes, please.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263324' date='May 3 2007, 05:23 PM']Want the history of the term, "Pope" (Greek, [i]pappas[/i]: papa, father)?

Likos[/quote]

Yes, please.

[Budge]

Anyone out of the Alexandrian school or tied to Constantine or Eusebius, FORGET IT.

Im sticking with Gods Word because we have HIs promise as to its purity.