Many modern day groups claim they want to "return " to the teaching of the original church.
It would surprise many of them to know what the real church was and what it taught. Because their groups are nothing like it!
As someone who meandered his way from protestantism and evangelical back to catholicism, reading what many of them thought along the way, I know what many groups do think!
The problem with scripture is it was never written as a manual of faith and on some issues it can be ambiguous or fail to state in a clear way. Take infant baptism. There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.
So how can we know what was true?
The answer is there is most certainly a historic record. The first discipes of apostles, the so called antinicene fathers, wrote abundant works.
Whilst it is true, that the works of the fathers are not inspired in the scriptural sense, they were fallible men. But when all the early fathers describe exactly the same and none dissent you can be certain it is a historical record of what the church did and taught!.
These people were taught by the apostles or by those taught by the apostles. And as St Paul tells us in scripture only those "sent" can preach. And as paul says "stay true" to what we taught you by word of mouth and letter"
What they describe is clear on many critical issues. None are dissenting.
Take being born again referrring to water baptism.
Take baptismal regeneration.
All agree - None of the fathers disagree on it.
So that is what the apostles taught their disciples.
So what matters about a religion anyway?.
First how do you enter. Be born again. Answer - by baptism with infant baptism clearly performed..
How is it organised. Answer bishops were appointed in succession from the first and have authority. From the disciples of john onwards. Igatius, polycarp, iraneus. All state it unequivocally . Iraneus knew the entire succession of all bishops to his time.They are the physical church. It is not just an invisible union.
How does it decide doctrine? The answer is take it to the church . Those bishops decided what was scripture. The books themselves fail to tell us which are scripture and which are not. Who authored them even. Even Jerome the later translater deferred to the church on what was scripture. You cannot decide it for yourself.
How does ir resolve disputes. Answer disputes are resolved by the agreement of bishops in succession. Which is why the church is the pillar of truth. They have the power to bind and loose.
So when they met to consider the circumcision it was not just original apostles, but included others appointed, who state It seemed "right to us and to the holy spirit". That is the magisterium working.
Finally what are the doctrines?
To a man they speak of the eucharist NOT being just a symbol. It IS the real flesh of jesus - ask ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc.
So they may not be inspired, and indidvidually they may go off the rails. But if they all agree on it, then that is clearly what Paul meant when he said profaning the eucharist is dangerous. That is because it IS the flesh of Jesus.
Sacred tradition carries the meaning of scripture. It is not unwritten ,and it is clear what was taught!
When one father says it, it is clearly questionable. When they all record the same, it is clearly the faith handed down to them and by them.
Which is the other issue. Valid teaching comes from the succession. Only those SENT can preach.
So you cannot like Luther try to redefine scripture. The early fathers decided what was scripture with the power to bind and loose.
Maccabees is in, whether or not Luther does not like the fact of prayers for the dead. Luther tried to redefine scripture in his image not Gods, and had no power to do so.
Which brings us to another issue.
Those who wrongly like to claim that the church did not decide what was scripture like Calvin who believed that what was true scripture is obvious and brings a tingle when you read it, or whatever, might like to realise that they are pronouncing exactly the same as the mormon church and even JWs! In reality scripture was chosen by the church with the powers given to them. You can read the story in the fathers.
You cannot invent other meanings for scripture which are not opposed by scripture.
Sccession , The eucharist of the real flesh, and infant baptism are clearly part of the true faith
It is not just writings of the church that also show what the early church was.
Long before there was a nicence creed, or even a defined new testament.
We see in the catacombs (around year 200) a tomb carries the inscription Here lies justin "peter and paul pray for him"
So that tells us that invoking saints and the efficacy of prayers for the dead (so therefore a place of purgation) are real.
That is what the church said and did and believed!
And protestants cannot change what was clearly the faith handed down from the first . (ie tradition)
Those who want to oppose the early church doctrines have a low view of Jesus. They must believe that he had no power to keep his church on track.
I often hear "are but we agree on essentials" by protestants. No they dont. THey disagrere on all matters of substance.
There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.
You will find it in the early fathers.
It would surprise many of them to know what the real church was and what it taught. Because their groups are nothing like it!
As someone who meandered his way from protestantism and evangelical back to catholicism, reading what many of them thought along the way, I know what many groups do think!
The problem with scripture is it was never written as a manual of faith and on some issues it can be ambiguous or fail to state in a clear way. Take infant baptism. There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.
So how can we know what was true?
The answer is there is most certainly a historic record. The first discipes of apostles, the so called antinicene fathers, wrote abundant works.
Whilst it is true, that the works of the fathers are not inspired in the scriptural sense, they were fallible men. But when all the early fathers describe exactly the same and none dissent you can be certain it is a historical record of what the church did and taught!.
These people were taught by the apostles or by those taught by the apostles. And as St Paul tells us in scripture only those "sent" can preach. And as paul says "stay true" to what we taught you by word of mouth and letter"
What they describe is clear on many critical issues. None are dissenting.
Take being born again referrring to water baptism.
Take baptismal regeneration.
All agree - None of the fathers disagree on it.
So that is what the apostles taught their disciples.
So what matters about a religion anyway?.
First how do you enter. Be born again. Answer - by baptism with infant baptism clearly performed..
How is it organised. Answer bishops were appointed in succession from the first and have authority. From the disciples of john onwards. Igatius, polycarp, iraneus. All state it unequivocally . Iraneus knew the entire succession of all bishops to his time.They are the physical church. It is not just an invisible union.
How does it decide doctrine? The answer is take it to the church . Those bishops decided what was scripture. The books themselves fail to tell us which are scripture and which are not. Who authored them even. Even Jerome the later translater deferred to the church on what was scripture. You cannot decide it for yourself.
How does ir resolve disputes. Answer disputes are resolved by the agreement of bishops in succession. Which is why the church is the pillar of truth. They have the power to bind and loose.
So when they met to consider the circumcision it was not just original apostles, but included others appointed, who state It seemed "right to us and to the holy spirit". That is the magisterium working.
Finally what are the doctrines?
To a man they speak of the eucharist NOT being just a symbol. It IS the real flesh of jesus - ask ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc.
So they may not be inspired, and indidvidually they may go off the rails. But if they all agree on it, then that is clearly what Paul meant when he said profaning the eucharist is dangerous. That is because it IS the flesh of Jesus.
Sacred tradition carries the meaning of scripture. It is not unwritten ,and it is clear what was taught!
When one father says it, it is clearly questionable. When they all record the same, it is clearly the faith handed down to them and by them.
Which is the other issue. Valid teaching comes from the succession. Only those SENT can preach.
So you cannot like Luther try to redefine scripture. The early fathers decided what was scripture with the power to bind and loose.
Maccabees is in, whether or not Luther does not like the fact of prayers for the dead. Luther tried to redefine scripture in his image not Gods, and had no power to do so.
Which brings us to another issue.
Those who wrongly like to claim that the church did not decide what was scripture like Calvin who believed that what was true scripture is obvious and brings a tingle when you read it, or whatever, might like to realise that they are pronouncing exactly the same as the mormon church and even JWs! In reality scripture was chosen by the church with the powers given to them. You can read the story in the fathers.
You cannot invent other meanings for scripture which are not opposed by scripture.
Sccession , The eucharist of the real flesh, and infant baptism are clearly part of the true faith
It is not just writings of the church that also show what the early church was.
Long before there was a nicence creed, or even a defined new testament.
We see in the catacombs (around year 200) a tomb carries the inscription Here lies justin "peter and paul pray for him"
So that tells us that invoking saints and the efficacy of prayers for the dead (so therefore a place of purgation) are real.
That is what the church said and did and believed!
And protestants cannot change what was clearly the faith handed down from the first . (ie tradition)
Those who want to oppose the early church doctrines have a low view of Jesus. They must believe that he had no power to keep his church on track.
I often hear "are but we agree on essentials" by protestants. No they dont. THey disagrere on all matters of substance.
There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.
You will find it in the early fathers.
Last edited:
