Posted on 07/15/2015 12:54:54 PM PDT by Morgana
There are lots of reasons why I decided, as an otherwise happy Evangelical Protestant, to become a Roman Catholic. Among these reasons were aesthetic and spiritual appeals—the beauty of the liturgy and the plethora of centuries old spiritual practices—and these were, indeed, powerful motivators.
But alongside the sometimes esoteric motivations were some fundamentally, concretely intellectual reasons to join the ranks of the ancient Catholic Church.
Chief among the intellectual appeals stand the towering figures of the Early Church Fathers.
Christians who lived, and wrote, some of them contemporary with the writings of the New Testament.
Many of them, in the earliest Fathers known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers, were taught themselves by the apostles.
It was the strong appeal and clear theology of these, some of the earliest and most foundational Christians, that contributed strongly to my intellectual conversion to Catholicism. To do anything otherwise, I’ll argue, would be utterly foolish.
The Clarity of the Church Fathers
I’ve written before, in a tongue-and-cheek article, that a surefire way to avoid becoming a Catholic is to avoid, altogether, reading from the Church Fathers.
The reason is simple. If you do venture a risk at reading the ancient Church Fathers something becomes alarmingly apparent fairly quickly in the history of the Church: the clarity of some very, particularly Catholic doctrine.
Take two examples: the Eucharist and Baptism.
The Church Fathers on Baptism
In the Catholic Church, along with the Anglicans and the Orthodox, these practices are Sacramental. That is, they hold the most special graces possible within the Church. In these acts, God does something specifically important.
In Catholicism, fundamentally, baptism saves.
This is, of course, contrary to my Evangelical upbringing. As an Evangelical baptism was merely an outward sign that I’ve accepted Christ. I was baptized years after becoming a Christian. My wife sometimes jokes that she was baptized—in a Baptist church—so she could get a job at the Church bookstore. Regardless, for the both of us baptism was an outward sign—that’s what we would’ve called it, “an outward sign,” symbolizing our acceptance of the mission and message of Christ.
While baptism is seen, nearly universally amongst Evangelicals, as a mere “outward sign” this is in complete and absolute contrast to the teaching of the Early Church Fathers.
Irenaeus, for example, writing in the 2nd century, is unequivocal,
For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’.
Along with a myriad of other Early Church Fathers, Irenaeus speaks about the important saving power of baptism—and its necessity.
And, alongside the witness of the other Early Church Fathers, Irenaeus’s teaching on the necessity of baptism is in stark contrast to what was taught in the Evangelical communities I “grew up” in.
The Church Fathers on the Eucharist
Likewise, the Eucharist.
I’ve written several times before about the convincing and unambiguous witness of the Early Church Fathers about the Eucharist. In the mind of all of these Church Fathers, themselves disciples of the very first disciples of Christ, the Eucharist was the actual blood and body of Christ.
This doctrine, a true mystery and miracle, is referred to as transubstantiation in the Catholic Church and is held, in similar ways, by the Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran communities.
In these communities, the belief is that the elements of wine and bread, during Communion, actually become Jesus’ flesh and blood through a miraculous transformation. Something akin to the feeding of the five thousand (which interestingly enough precedes Jesus’ famous Eucharistic Discourse in John 6).
This idea, in contrast, is fundamentally opposed by the whole of Evangelical Christendom.
Some denominations, like the Pentecostal church I was baptized in as a teen, would go so far as to hold Catholics as idolators for their worship of the Communion elements.
But back up that truck—belief in the real presence was a cornerstone of Christian worship in the time of the Early Church; it was so widely held and well known that early Christians were accused of being cannibals.
So You Think You’re Smarter than the Church Fathers?
I think, ultimately, there are two elements at play here.
First, for those that read the Church Fathers—those outside of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican faiths—it becomes a difficult balancing act. If we give the Church Fathers the full weight they deserve, as apostles of the apostles and the early founders of a Church which has maintained its identity and doctrine to today, then we need to do some serious thinking.
If baptism saved, if the bread and wine were believed to actually be Jesus in the time of the Early Church, why, and when, did we cease to maintain that belief?
The question to me, as an evangelical, was too great of an intellectual stumbling block to simply ignore.
Second, however, is that fact that so few of us read the Early Church Fathers to begin with—and that’s really the crux of the thing, isn’t it?
Would Protestantism proliferate 30,000 different denominations if we returned to the sources and, as a Christian people, read what the earliest Christians had to say?
The challenge of our times is one of rising above the status quo.
In the end, I suspect there are very few of us proposing to be smarter than the giants of the Early Christian Church. That would be a fool’s game. Instead, and sadly, I suspect the vast majority who cling to beliefs adopted in much more recent times don’t even know it—and haven’t read the ancient Christian sources or heard the incredible things they have to say.
No, I don’t think many of us think we’re smarter than the Church Fathers. I think most of us, sadly, haven’t bothered to read them, and find out.
Did they always agree with each other?
I do think I am smarter than the current Pope.
Sorry, but I do.
Of course, when you get to define who “Church Fathers” are, that’s awful convenient cover.
>>>>>>Would Protestantism proliferate 30,000 different denominations if we returned to the sources and, as a Christian people, read what the earliest Christians had to say?<<<<<<<<
The author needs to get a new lie.. this one has been debunked .. if the rest of his article is researched like this statement.. I would never trust him
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/756707/posts
Not sure why the author just didn’t go Lutheran or American Anglican if the liturgy is so important.
I went the other way. Was tired of the crap the catholic organization was doing an decided to exit to an actual “catholic” denomination.
And the author is incorrect, like so many Christians get wrong, that Catholicism, Lutheranism, and all the other “faiths” are not faiths at all but Christian denominations.
But alongside the sometimes esoteric motivations were some fundamentally, concretely intellectual reasons to join the ranks of the ancient Catholic Church. Chief among the intellectual appeals stand the towering figures of the Early Church Fathers. Christians who lived, and wrote, some of them contemporary with the writings of the New Testament.
Chief among the intellectual appeal to remain a Protestant are the unassailable figures who actually wrote the New Testament, and the unimpeachable record of the New Testament itself.
The Catholic approach appears to be one where the New Testament is viewed with suspicion, as if it were written in code or by idiot savants, requiring the early church fathers to decipher an otherwise unintelligible text.
>>Chief among the intellectual appeals stand the towering figures of the Early Church Fathers.
The Early Church Fathers (ECF) did not always agree. There were “Fathers” who were cut out of the church for not agreeing with the more powerful “Fathers” and declared to be heretics.
The ECF also died long before the RCC morphed into the monster that it had become by the time that the Reformation became necessary. It murdered people for trying to give the gospel to the people!! So, am I wiser than the ECFs? No. But the Later Church Fathers might be. The Holy Spirit certainly is, and Comrade-Pope Francis is proof that the RCC operates without the counsel of the Holy Spirit.
Possibly yes. In some areas definitely. And in some areas of theology, I might indeed be superior. I have wider information available.
And I have the same moral authority as someone who existed 325 years after Christ.
They did not possess any special ability to know Christ any better than I could today. 325 years is a very long time.
This would be like someone today claiming to speak with deep intimate authority over the mind and thinking of the Salem witch trials of 1690.
So while we can listen to Christians circa 325Ad, we need not defer to them like slaves. Also, following them as though they were divinely lead discounts the possibility that someone today might be sent inspiration from God.
So yes, we might know better.
bkmk
While you and I rarely agree on theological topics, the 30k number is a stretch, but the info below demonstrates where that number comes from.
Some of the research I did come from the Hartford Seminary (non-Catholic, non-denominational): Q: How many denominational groups are there in the United States?
A: This is a very tough question, because it depends on how a denomination is defined. There were 217 denominations listed in the 2006 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. But there may well be other groups that function as a denomination but do not regard themselves as such. The single largest religious group in the United States is the Roman Catholic Church, which had 67 million members in 2005. The Southern Baptist Convention, with 16 million members, was the largest of the Protestant denominations. The United Methodist Church was the second-largest Protestant denomination with 8 million members. In third and fourth spots were the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known as the Mormon church, with 6 million member, and the Church of God in Christ, a predominantly black Pentecostal denomination, with 5.5 million members.
However, since the RCMS 2010 study we now know that the grouping of nondenominational churches, if taken together, would be the second largest Protestant group in the country with over 35,000 independent or nondenominational churches representing more than 12,200,000 adherents. These nondenominational churches are present in every state and in 2,663 out of the total of 3,033 counties in the country, or 88% of the total.”
In the simplest terms, Luther and his contemporaries defected from the Catholic Church, they then defected from each other. The Catholic Church has remained the same, dogmatically (with two new dogmas since 1573), while those who left continually change and evolve.
“I’ve written before, in a tongue-and-cheek article, that a surefire way to avoid becoming a Catholic is to avoid, altogether, reading from the Church Fathers.”
Truth. If you start with Scripture and skip the church “fathers”, Catholicism will make no sense to you. Surefire.
And let me take this opportunity to say “Thank you Father for preserving YOUR Words for us and all the encouragement I get from them! Through your Son Jesus, Amen”
“In the simplest terms, Luther and his contemporaries defected from the Catholic Church, they then defected from each other. The Catholic Church has remained the same, dogmatically (with two new dogmas since 1573), while those who left continually change and evolve.”
eh.
The Catholic denominations are almost infinite, under one central teaching umbrella that is largely ignored. Under this franchise model, cancer stays in the big tent, while being ignored.
The non-Catholic denominations are many. Those that no longer obey the authority of Scripture and abandoned and cut off from fellowship with the others. In this ekklesia model, cancer is separated from the believing churches.
Yeah, I think you are, too.
No I do not think I am smarter than the founders of the Church - Jesus and his disciples. That is why I read and follow to the best of my ability, the 27 books of the New Testament that all of Christendom agrees as being Holy Scripture.
Or to put it another way, if only someone had written down what Jesus and his disciples said and did. Some kind of verifiable text that could be used to measure all of what another person says (be they priest, pastor or pope) and verify that what they are teaching aligns with the Word. That would be a book to read and to follow it’s teachings.
Interesting article, sounds like Mr. Hahn, never using scripture but always tradition as his source for apologetics.
I stand corrected different apologist but still stand by the authority of the Word of God.
The Roman Catholic Church hasn’t stayed with the early Church fathers!
Peter could not be a priest, much less a pope. And for hundreds of years, I believe, when the RCC discontinued the deacon position, he could only have been a layman in a pew.
I see a lot of the RCC in the early Church. But I also see where so much which was continued was twisted and distorted, and the worst part of that by far is that so often the faithful spiritual meaning is exchanged for one that isn’t faithful to the Gospel.
You wrote: “It murdered people for trying to give the Gospel to the people!!!”
Do you have a source for this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.