The Gospel According to the Church Fathers

The Cripplegate ^ | September 22, 2011 | Nathan Busenitz

[sparklite2]

Indeed. I haven’t seen such a magnificent straw man set up since Burning Man in the desert. And look how easily he gets knocked down!

[Talisker]

I built no straw men. What you consider gives me or doesn’t me credibility is as irrelevant as most of your comments are.

LOL, all kneel to the Pope of the Church of Scathing Contempt.

Be castigated in the name of the love of Christ, worms!

And remember, you will be told whether an answer is an answer or a comment, and whether a statement has been contradicted or not. For it is highly irritating to "Him Who Be All That," for worms to squeek what they believe are opinions about topics they have not been certified to opine upon.

Let It Be Written, Let It Be Done!

Bwahahaha!

[RnMomof7]

YEP...CB..they have never been taught the gospel so they do not know it

[metmom]

Look it up yourself. Anti-Catholics here have made the claim themselves.

Nope. You make the claim, you back it up or no one is obligated to take it seriously.

This business of making a claim and then sending people off to do your work for you is a bunch of nonsense. If you can't be bothered to support your own contentions, then they're obviously not worth the time and effort for anyone else to either.

[ForYourChildren]

Thanks

[metmom]

What deceit.

The enemy sure has people where he wants them, trusting in someone, anyone, any thing other than Jesus.

[MamaB]

I had never heard anything like that either. I have been to many denominations over my 71 years.

[RnMomof7]

What was the gospel that Jesus preached ?

[redleghunter]

Good post and data. By the sources you posted one could conclude their definition of salvation is by good works and the rosary.

[vladimir998]

“I did read the entire piece.”

Then why did you ask what the purpose was?

“The point is one can address error without waiting to the final few paragraphs.”

Oh, so that’s the point, and not: “And today in the 21st century a Catholic mystic site keeps her testimony next to others they uphold?”

“The message is no doubt that she gave a bad name to mystics having the same or similar experiences.”

Is that the message? Again, DID YOU ACTUAL READ WHAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM?

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. Faith versus works is ancient argument. I think the answer is both faith and works in that order. The writings of the early church fathers are interesting, but not as important as the Gospels. I do not believe the Gospels were lost between 100 AD and Martin Luther, but certainly a great deal was added that isn’t in the Gospels.

[vladimir998]

“... because the apostles didn’t teach about the assumption of Mary!”

No, first you would have to prove they didn’t. Second, you would have to prove that the assumption had happened already by the time Galatians was written. Many think it did not. Third, you would have to prove the assumption itself rather than the authority to teach it is part of the Gospel.

Get back to me when you’ve proved all three.

[delchiante]

Quote- Compare this with the Church Fathers above, who place salvation not into the hands of Mary or the rosary, but in Christ alone.

But the problem is that Mary points to Jesus ...

Maybe the Mary with rosary and her 15 promises for praying rosary is a liar?

And the Greco Roman Latin Jesus is also a fraud..and the Catholic mother and daughters do not have a different Jesus..

Certainly December 25, good Friday and easter Sunday are christian days not just based on the catholic Jesus and their Mary..

And faith in a counterfeit is just as false, whether you call yourself a catholic or a protestant..

[vladimir998]

What I posted was true. An anti-Catholic’s irrelevant opinions and posts are irrelevant. Your view doesn’t change that fact.

[vladimir998]

“Nope. You make the claim, you back it up or no one is obligated to take it seriously.”

Do you know how to use google?

[vladimir998]

“What was the gospel that Jesus preached ?”

Are you saying you don’t know?

[CynicalBear]

I don't have to prove anything. It's Catholics who have to prove that they did teach the assumption. I have to simply go by what I know they did teach and consider anyone who teaches something they didn't to be accursed. The only sure reference we have to what the apostles taught is what was written by them. The assumption of Mary wasn't even spoken of until at least the fourth century by the Catholic Church's own admission. See here..

The teaching is part of another gospel and as such is considered accursed by God.

[CynicalBear]

>>Are you saying you don’t know?<<

Are Catholics saying they can't back up what they say with documentation?

[metmom]

If it’s not found in Scripture it is not binding on believers.

The assumption of Mary, along with the immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, and a whole host of other claims about her are found nowhere in Scripture.

Therefore, the burden of proof that they are true is on those claiming they are truth.

It’s completely bogus to demand that people accept every statement made by the Catholic church as true because they said so and nobody has proved them wrong.

Reality is, until someone can prove from God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture that something is true, nobody is bound to it in the least.

It can be dismissed as the refuse that it is.

[Campion]

You guys relentlessly pick and choose the passages from the Fathers you think support your position. You don't, for example, cite Augustine when he says that it is a sin *not* to adore the consecrated Host. You don't quote Augustine in some of his more florid prayers to Mary.

"Salvation by faith" is totally scriptural, and is Catholic dogma. "Salvation by faith *ALONE*", if you define "saving faith" as Luther did, is neither.