Were the church fathers Roman Catholic?

[JasonTE]

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site documenting examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm

Jason Engwer

http://members.aol.com/jasonte


Jason, please to not link to your personal website in the body of your posts. If you wish to advertise your website, you can do so in your signature, which you can edit and enable from the control panel

[themuzicman]

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site documenting examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte

Of course not. The RCC wasn't started until circa 325AD.

Michael

[spl_cadet]

Long time no post Jason. Dave Armstrong did nail you on your stuff though. (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ122.HTM)

What's your opinion on Eric Svendsen's recent embarassment? (http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html)



Of course not. The RCC wasn't started until circa 325AD.

Evidence?

[Jude3b]

The assumption of Roman Catholic writers that theirs is the true church and that early church fathers were Roman Catholic is manifestly false. The claim that the popes are in the direct line of succession from St. Peter --even if suce a claim could be proved, which it cannot -- would mean but little without imitation of the lives of the apostles and conformity to their doctrines. Jeremiah rebuked the foolish confidence of the Jews in his day who cried, "The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah...are these" (7:4), and called on them rather to prove their devotion to God with righteous and holy living. The church of Rome is a foul harlot rather than the spouse of Christ, because of the low moral standard practiced and tolerated by her popes, priests, and pedophiles. Her pretensions to be the true church of Christ were shown by her actions to be false. How could she be the kingdom of Christ when her way of life was so opposed to His Word?

[Katholish]

Does the non-Catholic position concede that the Church Fathers specifically stated that they believed in the Catholic Church as a proper noun? Thus that they and the Catholic Church of today refer to themselves using the same proper noun, the "Catholic Church" (Catholic being part of the proper noun and not a lower case adjective)?

While with all of the latter Fathers of the Church, it is extremely easy to prove such referrences, I will even site them in the two earliest Church Fathers that we have complete writings from, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Irenaeus of Lyon.

I have read numerous translations of St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrnians when the term Catholic Church is first used, and Calvinsit, Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic translations all agree that the Catholic is capitalized and part of one proper noun in the following selection (which also happens to be the quote in my signature):

Chapter VIII St. Ignatius's Letter to the Smyrnaens:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

St. Irenaeus actually gives us a listing of the succession of St. Peter, but for the time being, his referrence to the Catholic Church is what is important.

Book 1 Chapter 10 Adversus Haereses:

3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may [more accurately than another] bring out the meaning of those things which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith; and explain [with special clearness] the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason "God hath concluded every man in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all;" and gratefully describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that "this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption;" and proclaim in what sense [God] says, "'That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved;" and in what sense He says that "more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband." For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: "Oh! the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring Aeon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.

I think that this is a point that is important for us to clear up at the beginning of this discussion to avoid any unnecessary confusion down the road. If this is argeed to then we can look at if the Catholic Church referred to by these early Fathers is the same Catholic Church that exists today headed by the Roman pontiff. That is really where this discussion lies.

[JasonTE]

I have articles at my web site responding to Dave Armstrong, if anybody is interested. And Eric Svendsen has articles at his web site responding to John Pacheco. Eric Svendsen knows Greek, and he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Mary. John Pacheco doesn't know Greek, and he wrote no doctoral dissertation. Eric Svendsen's work on Mary has been endorsed by Craig Blomberg, Peter Jones, and other scholars. What scholars have endorsed John Pacheco's work?

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[spl_cadet]

I have articles at my web site responding to Dave Armstrong, if anybody is interested. And Eric Svendsen has articles at his web site responding to John Pacheco. Eric Svendsen knows Greek, and he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Mary. John Pacheco doesn't know Greek, and he wrote no doctoral dissertation.

And Eric's work has been exposed as completely and utterly wrong.



Eric Svendsen's work on Mary has been endorsed by Craig Blomberg, Peter Jones, and other scholars. What scholars have endorsed John Pacheco's work?

Paul L. Owen, Ph.D. (University of Edinburgh)
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Languages
Montreat College

And there are plenty of others cited who agree with Pacheco.

[Rusty T]

Uhm, the Orthodox Catholic Faith would say they were Orthodox.

[Jude3b]

Bible believing Christians would say that the early church fathers were Christians.

[themuzicman]

Seeing as the leader of the early church was James and not Peter, I'd say that their line of succession starts with the wrong guy!

[spl_cadet]

Seeing as the leader of the early church was James and not Peter, I'd say that their line of succession starts with the wrong guy!

And what is your evidence to support that theory?

[themuzicman]

And what is your evidence to support that theory?

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles R865 and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 `AFTER R891 THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,'
18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES F361 THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

All the elders and apostles were gathered, including Peter, right?

This is a council meeting on a doctrinal issue, right?

So, who made the ruling? James did. Clearly Peter was not the Pope of the early church.

Michael

[rocketman]

Muzicman...

Which James are you referring to, may I ask? Is it James the Greater, James the Lesser, or James, "Brother" of Jesus (He was actually cousin of Jesus, being born of Virgin Mary's sister Mary, wife of Clopas, as pointed out in the Gospel texts)? Which James is the James of Acts 15?

[spl_cadet]

All the elders and apostles were gathered, including Peter, right?

This is a council meeting on a doctrinal issue, right?

So, who made the ruling? James did. Clearly Peter was not the Pope of the early church.

In a council, no one person makes the ruling. It is voted upon by all the bishops, though the pope presides over the council (or at least sends legates).

[Katholish]

Perhaps I should have directed my question a little better instead of expecting to take of the opposing arguement on their own.

JasonTE and Jude3b, do you concede that the early Church Fathers and the Catholic Church of today both call themselves by the same name, ie. "The Catholic Church"?

[themuzicman]

In a council, no one person makes the ruling. It is voted upon by all the bishops, though the pope presides over the council (or at least sends legates).

Well, in this council, James made the ruling and concluding statement, and issues the instruction. Sounds pretty clear to me.

Michael

[JasonTE]

spl cadet said:



And Eric's work has been exposed as completely and utterly wrong.

Have you read his book or his articles? Do you even know what his dissertation was about? Are you aware that it's about more than the perpetual virginity of Mary? Are you aware that the segment on the perpetual virginity doctrine addresses more than Matthew 1:25? Would you explain to us how the entire dissertation has been "exposed as completely and utterly wrong"?

How much do you know about John Pacheco? Are you aware that he posted at Robert Sungenis' web site claiming that he and Sungenis were going to refute Eric Svendsen's book before they did the research to allegedly refute it? Sungenis later became involved in geocentrism and some other errors, and John Pacheco left Sungenis' ministry. Later, he (John Pacheco) went around looking for somebody who knows Greek to help him respond to Eric Svendsen (Sungenis was no longer helping him), and he found another Catholic apologist, David Palm, to help him with the Greek. Pacheco's material doesn't even address the majority of what Svendsen discusses in his dissertation. You want us to think that Pacheco's work "exposes" as "completely and utterly wrong" a peer-reviewed doctoral dissertation that it only partially responds to?



Paul L. Owen, Ph.D. (University of Edinburgh)
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Languages
Montreat College

And there are plenty of others cited who agree with Pacheco.

Paul Owen says that he hasn't read Eric Svendsen's dissertation. I've also seen John Pacheco cite other scholars who haven't read it. Can you cite any scholars rejecting Eric Svendsen's work who have read his dissertation? The scholars who have endorsed his work, unlike Paul Owen, have read it.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Dcn_Athanasius]

[QUOTE=JasonTE]Were the church fathers Roman Catholic?

Jason Engwer
QUOTE]

Peace and grace be with your spirit Jason.

The Church Fathers certainly would have had the concept that they were a part of the Catholic Church AND that they were orthodox in their beliefs.

Your question mixes in a later idea with an ancient time.

Please remember me in your prayers. .

[shunyadragon]

Were the church fathers Roman Catholic? Did people like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Augustine believe what Roman Catholicism teaches? A couple of years ago, I began a series of posts at the New Testament Research Ministries web site documenting examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism. You can access archives of the series at:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte

Disagreeing with the Roman Church today would not mean they were not part of the Roman Church. As you noted on your site the beliefs of the early church fathers was mixed and some even rejected the widely held doctrine of the Trinity believed by most churches. There is no evidence of any other significant church that shared the doctrines or the Bible of any particular Protestant or Orthodox church today. In fact many of the church fathers expressed view that would be very different from the Fundimentalist beliefs. St. Augustine for one would probably considered TE and many at the least OEC.

The early Church Fathers may have varied in their beliefs, but the dotrines held central to the beliefs of most churches was established and standardized by the Roman Church.

[Spirit-Filled]

The Christian Church started in the second Chapter Of Acts.They followed the Apostle's Doctrine.They preached Repentance ,Water Baptism in Jesus Name,Holy Ghost Baptism with the sign of speaking in Tongues.ACTS 2:4 ACTS 2:38
The Book of Acts is where Christianity started to be like the original church we must be like the Church in Acts.Acts 2:42 See what the Book of Acts church taught to in order be like the early Christian Church.One Lord,One Faith,One Baptism

[Joe Gofish]

Of course not. The RCC wasn't started until circa 325AD.

Michael
SORRY THE WORD RCC DID NOT GET HERE UNTIL 1054,IT WAS AFTER THE SPLIT,
: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those "other" Catholics and create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
Different variants of the "Roman" insult appeared at different times. The earliest form of the insult was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a late-comer term about 1815-1825-the noun "Roman Catholicism," which is a synonym for the earlier "Romanism."

[Joe Gofish]

Long time no post Jason. Dave Armstrong did nail you on your stuff though. (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ122.HTM)

What's your opinion on Eric Svendsen's recent embarassment? (http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html)



Evidence?
They belong to the universal Church,The RCC did not get its name untill about 1054 and all the prstestant church come around in about 1500.

[kommandermatt]

All the elders and apostles were gathered, including Peter, right?

This is a council meeting on a doctrinal issue, right?

So, who made the ruling? James did. Clearly Peter was not the Pope of the early church.

Michael

From what I can see, the cited passage works against you at least as much as for you. If Peter is so clearly not the Pope, it seems odd to me that the debate seems pretty well settled only after he speaks. Sure, James sums things up, since it is his Bishopric after all, but Peter is the one that issues the real pronouncement, and it's Peter's pronouncement that James appeals to. 15:12 states unequivocally that after Peter spoke "all the multitude kept silence." Afterwards, Paul and Barnabas extol the virtues of the Gentiles unmolested for a bit, and James sort of says, "Well, you heard Peter, I guess that's the end of that chapter."

Furthermore, your atomistic approach to the problem isn't very helpful when confronted with the wider context offered by Acts. If it really is your contention, based on this one passage, that James was the leader of the early Church, how do you explain Peter's leading role in the election of Matthias? That was an important council too, and one that established a doctrine. (Apostolic Succession)

Some more interesting factiods: (None of these is exactly conclusive "proof" of anything, but all are worth considering, especially if we're looking for a post-Christ leader.)

Peter is the first to preach to the crowds at Pentecost. Acts 2:14-40
Peter is the first to recieve converts. Acts 2:41
Peter is the first to heal someone after Christ's Ascension. Acts 3:6-7
He hands out the first punishment. Acts 5:1-11
He excommunicates the first heretic. Acts 8:18-23

This is all just Acts of course, and I'm not even sure it's exaustive of that book.

As to the real question at hand, I don't think we'll get very far until someone answers Katholish's question.