What things in the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox church teachings of TODAY are NOT in the Early Church Fathers' Teachings?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RayneBeau said:
The vast majority of Roman Catholics consider the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception infallible teachings simply and only because they involve the solemn, full, and universal papal authority which they believe to be infallible, meaning that the Roman Catholic pope is incapable of error when speaking ex cathedra, as he did when he proclaimed these two unfounded, unbiblical titles on Mary.
Click to expand...
I've also seen catholics accept these dogmas for no other reason than shrugging their shoulders and saying 'seems plausible.' I doubt most catholics even care.
 
Mysterium Fidei said:
Belief in the Assumption goes back to apostolic era and it is found in the ancient liturgies of the Church. In Rome the Assumption or Dormitio of the Blessed Virgin Mary appears in the 7th century to have been celebrated for an indefinite period of time. St. John Damascene taught it. It was taught by early church fathers and found in the early liturgies of the Church. The Assumption has been proclaimed by popes, taught by bishops, saints, doctors of the church, contained in liturgies, litanies and processions and became universally practiced long before Pius XII solemnized it
Click to expand...
Some of your church fathers may have taught it, but the earliest and most important of them didn't. They were the ones who wrote scripture. It was foreign to them. It is idolatry no matter how you slice or dice it.
 
Nondenom40 said:
I've also seen catholics accept these dogmas for no other reason than shrugging their shoulders and saying 'seems plausible.' I doubt most catholics even care.
Click to expand...
I agree. Most Roman Catholics are very complacent and do not compare their church's teachings with the Word of God.
 
Matt Slick said:
What things in the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox church teachings of TODAY are NOT in the Early Church Fathers' Teachings?

I'm developing a list...

i.e.,

Assumption of Mary

got any more...?
Click to expand...
This is a tricky question, depending on (a) what date you would off "early" Church Fathers (4th-5th centuries?) and (b) what kind of "teaching" you are looking for (explicit doctrinal statements?). Churches that profess doctrinal development do not rely on specific early articulations of beliefs but rather traditions that contain evidence (or seeds) of them, that the body then discerns throughout history.

As for the Assumption, we have these kinds of seeds already in third-fourth century documents (such as Liber Requiei Mariae), which I would argue is relatively early. Epiphanius's discussion regarding what happened to Mary also suggests that this was being discussed.
 
jonathan_hili said:
This is a tricky question, depending on (a) what date you would off "early" Church Fathers (4th-5th centuries?) and (b) what kind of "teaching" you are looking for (explicit doctrinal statements?). Churches that profess doctrinal development do not rely on specific early articulations of beliefs but rather traditions that contain evidence (or seeds) of them, that the body then discerns throughout history.
Click to expand...
it's only tricky for those who don't believe what Jesus and the apostles taught. That's why catholics have to skip over scripture and use writings of men in later centuries to support their beliefs.

As for the Assumption, we have these kinds of seeds already in third-fourth century documents (such as Liber Requiei Mariae), which I would argue is relatively early. Epiphanius's discussion regarding what happened to Mary also suggests that this was being discussed.
Click to expand...
again you skip over God's word and go to words of men to support what you believe.
 
mica said:
it's only tricky for those who don't believe what Jesus and the apostles taught. That's why catholics have to skip over scripture and use writings of men in later centuries to support their beliefs.


again you skip over God's word and go to words of men to support what you believe.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what Christian position you hold, you can't get the essentials of the Christian faith from scripture alone. The obvious point - as I'm sure it's been pointed out dozens of times - is that the canon of scripture is not in the texts themselves. Consequently, you must look outside the texts for some things.

What in God's word contradicts the Assumption of Mary?
 
jonathan_hili said:
Regardless of what Christian position you hold, you can't get the essentials of the Christian faith from scripture alone. The obvious point - as I'm sure it's been pointed out dozens of times - is that the canon of scripture is not in the texts themselves. Consequently, you must look outside the texts for some things.

What in God's word contradicts the Assumption of Mary?
Click to expand...
Not true, the canon of scripture does not prove your point. It never needed to be called the Canon of scripture to be scripture. It does not save you. Jesus saves.
 
balshan said:
Not true, the canon of scripture does not prove your point. It never needed to be called the Canon of scripture to be scripture. It does not save you. Jesus saves.
Click to expand...
I'm confused by what you mean. My contention is that for the essentials of Christian faith you need to go beyond scripture. It seems obvious that what is scripture is an essential of Christian faith, but there is no table of contents in scripture itself.

Even your assertion that "Jesus saves" is based on scripture, so you already presume certain books are scripture and certain ones are not.
 
jonathan_hili said:
I'm confused by what you mean. My contention is that for the essentials of Christian faith you need to go beyond scripture. It seems obvious that what is scripture is an essential of Christian faith, but there is no table of contents in scripture itself.

Even your assertion that "Jesus saves" is based on scripture, so you already presume certain books are scripture and certain ones are not.
Click to expand...
No true and what I posted was easy to understand. You want to add to scripture and you use the canon of scripture as an add on. We can live without the table of content. Jesus is who we need, He saves add ons don't. No to need to upgrade.
 
jonathan_hili said:
Regardless of what Christian position you hold, you can't get the essentials of the Christian faith from scripture alone. The obvious point - as I'm sure it's been pointed out dozens of times - is that the canon of scripture is not in the texts themselves. Consequently, you must look outside the texts for some things.

What in God's word contradicts the Assumption of Mary?
Click to expand...
yes, one can. that you (and other catholics) can't is another story... you are bound by the lies taught by the RCC. The essentials of Christianity are found within scripture.

How were people saved in NT time without the new truths 'revealed ' (made up) by the RCC?
 
balshan said:
No true and what I posted was easy to understand. You want to add to scripture and you use the canon of scripture as an add on. We can live without the table of content. Jesus is who we need, He saves add ons don't. No to need to upgrade.
Click to expand...
But how do you know what scripture speaks authentically about Jesus without the canon? Would you accept the Gospel of Thomas? That speaks about Jesus? And what about books you hold to be scripture but don't speak about Jesus at all?
 
mica said:
yes, one can. that you (and other catholics) can't is another story... you are bound by the lies taught by the RCC. The essentials of Christianity are found within scripture.

How were people saved in NT time without the new truths 'revealed ' (made up) by the RCC?
Click to expand...
*sigh* that's the point though. What scripture is is an essential of Christianity, since it is such a key source of religious truth and revelation.
 
e v e said:
His image is male and female... adam human in genesis is made in “our image”, God says in Genesis.

His spirit is feminine when mentioned in Hebrew. Its not merely some grammar thing just because a later pagan language as greek says otherwise or roman theology tried to hide it. irenaeus and others knew this. translations lost the meaning, I’d say on purpose, helped along by some confused greek-thinking theologians such as augustine who said of eve that adam was better off with a male partner instead. no joke.
Click to expand...
Can you reference where Augustine said that, please?

If Greek is a pagan language - and so a bad thing - what does that make the New Testament (written in Greek)?
 
e v e said:
i sure can reference it. Go to amazon and find there a text that collects all of Augustines comments on genesis into one volume. It is called “on genesis”.
Click to expand...
I don't think Augustine had a cold view of God - or Genesis (I'm not even sure what a "cold view" of Genesis even means). But I look forward to reading your reference.
 
e v e said:
His image is male and female... adam human in genesis is made in “our image”, God says in Genesis.

His spirit is feminine when mentioned in Hebrew. Its not merely some grammar thing just because a later pagan language as greek says otherwise or roman theology tried to hide it. irenaeus and others knew this. translations lost the meaning, I’d say on purpose, helped along by some confused greek-thinking theologians such as augustine who said of eve that adam was better off with a male partner instead. no joke.
Click to expand...
How does the creation of man = God being male and female? The "Our" is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Greek is pagan?

Spirit has no gender, but God clearly represents Himself as male.
 
jonathan_hili said:
Regardless of what Christian position you hold, you can't get the essentials of the Christian faith from scripture alone. The obvious point - as I'm sure it's been pointed out dozens of times - is that the canon of scripture is not in the texts themselves. Consequently, you must look outside the texts for some things.

What in God's word contradicts the Assumption of Mary?
Click to expand...
If you can't get the essentials of the Christian faith from scripture alone, which is the only source that is God-breathed and inspired by Him, by what standard do you measure true doctrine?

The reason we know the assumption of Mary is false doctrine is because it was never taught, never included in scripture, and that's why it's a contradiction. The ecfs can be wrong, you know. They weren't inspired by God. I'm always amazed when people prefer the words of men rather than God.

If you don't have something certain (scripture) by which to measure truth, you will never know what the truth is and are at great risk of believing false teaching. You have teachings of ecfs in one hand, the bible in the other. When they don't match, which one do you hold on to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top