Roman Catholicism and Early Church Leaders?

O

Oracio Jul 18, 2014

At the outset of this thread I'd like to make a sincere disclaimer. I am not starting this thread to start a debate full of strife or discord among the brethren. I simply thought it would be good for us to think through this issue a bit and respectfully discuss it amongst us.

These are some thoughts that came to mind, some of my current views or leanings on this:

The RCC, as an official system of religion, is seriously heretical and a cult by definition. This is clearly seen in reading the Catholic Catechism, the official RCC statement of faith.

That being said, I believe there are some true believers within that system, like there are true believers within other heretical systems such as the Word of Faith prosperity gospel movement. As such I would never recommend for any true believers to remain within such a cultish system but to immediately come out of it. I would lovingly try to warn them regarding it.

Regarding the Early Church Fathers, I understand that the earlier the better. However, it seems clear that it didn't take that long for early church leaders to come up with serious aberrations from the faith once for all delivered to the saints. For example, this article shows how some of the apostolic fathers believed and taught on purgatory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Purgatory#Purification_after_death

I would not question the salvation of some of these church fathers solely based on their embrace of certain heretical RCC views. But I would also not recommend nor see it as necessary or that beneficial to read their writings. And I would be willing to respectfully agree to disagree with brethren who feel otherwise on some of those writings. I would only be seriously concerned if it is implied we can embrace the current RCC system as a true church within the Body of Christ.

All that being said, a good point has been made about how we got the canon of Scripture. And I also thought about all the essential doctrines that were defended by the early church fathers in the councils. My response regarding that would be that God used those leaders and councils to preserve His Word IN SPITE OF the serious errors within the RCC system.

sermonindex Jul 18, 2014

I disagree with your wording of cult. A major emphasis of a cult is doing something to force against one's will.

Specific examples of belief in purification after death and of the communion of the living with the dead through prayer are found in many of the Church Fathers.[14] Irenaeus (c. 130-202) mentioned an abode where the souls of the dead remained until the universal judgment, a process that has been described as one which "contains the concept of... purgatory."[15] Both St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) and his pupil, Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254), developed a view of purification after death;[16] this view drew upon the notion that fire is a divine instrument from the Old Testament, and understood this in the context of New Testament teachings such as baptism by fire, from the Gospels, and a purificatory trial after death, from St. Paul.[17] Origen, in arguing against soul sleep, stated that the souls of the elect immediately entered paradise unless not yet purified, in which case they passed into a state of punishment, a penal fire, which is to be conceived as a place of purification.[18] For both Clement and Origen, the fire was neither a material thing nor a metaphor, but a "spiritual fire".[19] An early Latin author, Tertullian (c. 160-225), also articulated a view of purification after death.[20] In Tertullian's understanding of the afterlife, the souls of martyrs entered directly into eternal blessedness,[21] whereas the rest entered a generic realm of the dead. There the wicked suffered a foretaste of their eternal punishments,[21] whilst the good experienced various stages and places of bliss wherein "the idea of a kind of purgatory… is quite plainly found," an idea that is representative of a view widely dispersed in antiquity.[22] Later examples, wherein further elaborations are articulated, include St. Cyprian (d. 258),[23] St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407),[24] and St. Augustine (354-430),[25] among others.

I do not see one direct quote of any of these early church fathers. And Tertuallian's view seems very much like what some evangelicals interpret as Abraham's bosom. Which people interrupt as "paradise" and not heaven itself because one could see the damned suffering with the gulf between.

Also I would say again you use the RCC as something that always existed since AD 100 or something early which is just not true. It would be good for you to research and guesstimate a later date of when potentially it became more of an unhealthy state.

The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.).

So before that it seems there was much more health in the Church and it was the One Church where many godly bishops tended God's flock.

T

TMK Jul 18, 2014

I wonder just how dispensable RC Sproul would say Augustine is.

It does make one wonder why those saints much closer in time to the apostles would believe in a place of purging.

Why would that be? Sure would be nice to be able to trace back to the first person that taught this.

O

Oracio Jul 18, 2014

I disagree with your wording of cult. A major emphasis of a cult is doing something to force against one's will.

This is a definition of a cult from websters online encyclopedia:

"Collective veneration or worship (e.g., the cult of the saints””meaning collective veneration of the saints””in Roman Catholicism). In the West, the term has come to be used for groups that are perceived to have deviated from normative religions in belief and practice. They typically have a charismatic leader and attract followers who are in some way disenfranchised from the mainstream of society. Cults as thus defined are often viewed as foreign or dangerous.”

Since the RCC teaches the veneration of Mary and the saints I think it falls under that definition. Here is an entry on the cult of the saints from Brittanica:

"The cult (system of religious beliefs and rituals) of the saints emerged in the 3rd century and gained momentum from the 4th to the 6th century. The bones of martyrs were believed to provide evidence of God’s power at work in the world, producing miracles and spectacles of the effectiveness of faith. The martyrs had imitated Christ even unto death, and the remains of their holy bodies were...”

The RCC also has the pope as its charismatic leader whom multitudes follow blindly and almost worship.

I do not see one direct quote of any of these early church fathers. And Tertuallian's view seems very much like what some evangelicals interpret as Abraham's bosom. Which people interrupt as "paradise" and not heaven itself because one could see the damned suffering with the gulf between.

I do not have much time right now to do much research on that so I’d have to get back on that. If anyone has any direct quotes feel free to share, not just on purgatory but any other RCC errors.

Also I would say again you use the RCC as something that always existed since AD 100 or something early which is just not true. It would be good for you to research and guesstimate a later date of when potentially it became more of an unhealthy state.
The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.).
So before that it seems there was much more health in the Church and it was the One Church where many godly bishops tended God's flock

My point was that some official RCC heresies can be traced way back even to the time of the apostolic fathers. It seems that very early on they deviated from sound doctrine and created traditions of men that nullified the Word of God. As such it became a system of beliefs known as the RCC. Yes there were true believers and leaders but that does not justify their serious errors which we must renounce if we are to be obedient to God's Word.

Another point I want to make is that when the Scriptures speak of receiving traditions handed down it refers to traditions that are taught in the Word of God, such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Not man-made erroneous traditions which the RCC holds to be equal in authority with Scripture.

sermonindex Jul 18, 2014

I think we massively over simplify the claim to a heretical all encompassing Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand we may over complicate what the meaning of the True Catholic Church is. Most really well written and substantial works on the Roman Catholic Church from the Protestant genre date the real start of the RCC as a system of error to about the 6th Century and then go on to conclude that this RCC system came into its fullness in the 13th Century.

The fact that some erroneous doctrines are said to have their roots in a particular individual or at a particular time and place is mostly intellectual subjectivism based on extant manuscripts and reading between the lines. It may be a case of take it or leave it with most things. Perhaps the best approach to error is to exercise discernment here and now and spend less time worrying about how things got stared.

Augustine contributed to the present Canon of Scripture from Jerusalem, which he called an "out of the way place". It is a comment of course which he wrote in a personal letter explaining what he had done in gathering a list of and copies of as many ecclesiastical writings he could find and accepting or else rejecting the obvious truth from the obvious error. Is Jerusalem an out of the way place? It was in the 4th Century and it still is if you happen to be writing with Rome in mind. Yet the Rome of Augustine's day is not the Rome of today. Not politically and not spiritually!

Everything is relative until you apply discernment, then it is either true or false according to God.

sermonindex Jul 18, 2014

I agree with Andrew Kelly.

Within the Catholic Church, there have always been a section of deeply spiritual men and women who follow(ed) the traditional mystical teaching of via triplex, which is Purgation, Illumination and Union. Notice that Purgation or purgatory, is at the beginning and not the end. St John of the Cross (16th C) is amongst those. Although he was classed as a doctor of the church at a much later date, I have found that some of his teachings are at odds with the official dogma, such as when perfection comes. The official teaching is after death but John clearly taught it to be in this life. I can only assume that his writings were not studied closely or misunderstood when they were read. He was also imprisoned during his lifetime for 9 months due to his teaching.

O

Oracio Jul 18, 2014

I think we massively over simplify the claim to a heretical all encompassing Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand we may over complicate what the meaning of the True Catholic Church is. Most really well written and substantial works on the Roman Catholic Church from the Protestant genre date the real start of the RCC as a system of error to about the 6th Century and then go on to conclude that this RCC system came into its fullness in the 13th Century.
The fact that some erroneous doctrines are said to have their roots in a particular individual or at a particular time and place is mostly intellectual subjectivism based on extant manuscripts and reading between the lines. It may be a case of take it or leave it with most things. Perhaps the best approach to error is to exercise discernment here and now and spend less time worrying about how things got stared.
Augustine contributed to the present Canon of Scripture from Jerusalem, which he called an "out of the way place". It is a comment of course which he wrote in a personal letter explaining what he had done in gathering a list of and copies of as many ecclesiastical writings he could find and accepting or else rejecting the obvious truth from the obvious error. Is Jerusalem an out of the way place? It was in the 4th Century and it still is if you happen to be writing with Rome in mind. Yet the Rome of Augustine's day is not the Rome of today. Not politically and not spiritually!
Everything is relative until you apply discernment, then it is either true or false according to God.

Good points brother, I’ll give you that. I am trying to sincerely sort this issue out a bit within my mind as one who has not studied church history that much or the early church writings. I have read very little and some of it has been very much in accordance with Scripture while other parts have been seriously concerning. The RCC tries to claim all the church fathers and their writings as part of their history and system and venerates and prays to them, while some Protestant theologians also try to claim them. This can cause confusion, especially for new Christians. My concern is that if a new Christians starts reading some of those writings and comes across RCC error, it can be a huge stumbling block to them. We’ve heard of situations where some Protestants, even pastors, have joined the RCC after studying some of these writings. My reasoning here is that these writings are not equal with Scripture and should not be elevated too much, especially in light of the fact that some contain RCC error.

So far I was looking into the apostolic fathers a bit, namely Polycarp of Smyrna (65-155 AD), Clement of Rome(died 99 AD), and Ignatius of Antioch (c.”‰35 or 50 ”“ 98 to 117 AD). So far I didn’t find much to be concerned about, other than this quote from Ignatius on the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. ””Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6”

I felt that quote was worthy of consideration because the RCC teaching on transubstantiation is closely linked to their teaching on the mass-sacrifice of Christ. Here is an article that explains the seriousness of this error: http://carm.org/transubstantiation

In posting that quote and bringing that up I do not mean to completely write off Ignatius as a heretic or devalue his contribution to the Church. Again, my point is simply to say we must be very careful with these writings that are extra-biblical.

So so far it seems to me that at least the writings of Polycarp of Smyrna and Clement of Rome are very solid in sound doctrine and without any serious concern or error. I’ll continue to research.

sermonindex Jul 18, 2014

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. ””Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6”

This is a worthy consideration because many of the early reformers considered the eucharist (Lord's supper) something more then a symbol. Luther's view was much closer to the Catholic viewpoint. Zwingli was one of the only major teachers who denied any spiritual substance and claimed it was merely a symbol and did not put as much importance on it. So should we consider that it is biblical that there is more to the Lord's Supper then a symbol ritual that we do and that there is benefit or determent to the taking of the Lord's supper depending in what way we partake?

I personally have always taken the Lord's Supper very seriously and treated it more then just a piece of bread, it becomes sanctified when used in holy communion and I have always felt a spiritual benefit to it when treating the time with reverence.

O

Oracio Jul 18, 2014

This is a worthy consideration because many of the early reformers considered the eucharist (Lord's supper) something more then a symbol. Luther's view was much closer to the Catholic viewpoint. Zwingli was one of the only major teachers who denied any spiritual substance and claimed it was merely a symbol and did not put as much importance on it. So should we consider that it is biblical that there is more to the Lord's Supper then a symbol ritual that we do and that there is benefit or determent to the taking of the Lord's supper depending in what way we partake?
I personally have always taken the Lord's Supper very seriously and treated it more then just a piece of bread, it becomes sanctified when used in holy communion and I have always felt a spiritual benefit to it when treating the time with reverence.

While Luther did believe and teach the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, he opposed the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He wrote:

"Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand "bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread," and "wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine." Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning. Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation ”” certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea ”” until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits."

Believing that Christ is really present with us in the Lord's Supper, and believing that that His literal body and blood are present as an on-going sacrifice during the RCC mass are two completely different things.

sermonindex Jul 18, 2014

Mathew 24:9
Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who us in heaven.

Brethren this is a very, very serious admonition of Jesus. I am seeing some disturbing elements coming out in these threads. When I hear men ascribed as "church fathers" or "holy fathers" I get disturbed. And I see Ronan Catholicism.

Men are not to be elevated in place of Christ. Their works are not to be elevated in place of the Bible.

There is only one authority over the church. It is Jesus Christ and Him alone. His Word is all that is needed.

Believers in persecuted lands only need Jesus and His Word. Indeed those that during the Reformation who stood for this were put to death by the institution who claimed to walk in the legacy of the so called church fathers.

From the limited selections I have read of these men I find no edification. I find much more edification in Christ and His Word.

Those in the emergent church movement are calling Francis their pope. Will this be the next step in this forum.

When I see discussions of Apostolic succession and purgatory opened up. Brethren I get worried. It makes me wonder what the Reformation was all about.

Before this forum begins an infatuation with the RCC talk to Mary Jane or Br. Frank. Their testimonies of being converted out of Ronan Csthocism will be very enlightening.

My thoughts.

Blaine

sermonindex Jul 18, 2014

Men are not to be elevated in place of Christ. Their works are not to be elevated in place of the Bible.
There is only one authority over the church. It is Jesus Christ and Him alone. His Word is all that is needed.

Blaine,

With all due respect I disagree. The Church has always had leadership, Apostles, Elders. Though at times in persecuted contexts there is less organization out of necessity, though even in underground churches in China there is great organization in certain large house church networks, ie 1 brother ontop, then many other regional leaders over the other leaders. This is simply something that happens and if we submit to Church-life in our local areas we need to be under some authority.

Early Church Fathers are not just like us in that they were leaders, most of them bishops (Elders) and led the flock of God in their day. They simply followed the patter the Lord left of leadership over the church ie the 12 apostles (11 not counting judas).

Believers in persecuted lands only need Jesus and His Word. Indeed those that during the Reformation who stood for this were put to death by the institution who claimed to walk in the legacy of the so called church fathers.

Anabaptist groups did not consider themselves a new group but also looked to early examples. A reading of menno simmons will show this.

ie

Like many of the Reformers, Simons’ beliefs concerning church practices were affected by his in-depth search of the scriptures which started around 1526. During this time of study, serious questions arose concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the actual Body and Blood of Christ). Menno could not find any evidence of this doctrine in the Bible. "I did not get very far in it before I saw that we had been deceived.” He concluded that the meaning of the Lord’s supper was symbolic. Infant baptism, also not found in the Bible, was another issue he had concerns about. In 1531 he discussed his issues with his pastor, searched the writings of the Church Fathers, and read the works of Martin Luther and Heinrich Bullinger. It was at this time he came into direct contact with Anabaptists who were preaching and practicing believer’s baptism.
from: http://biblicalbelievers.com/index.php/the-reformers-2/the-reformers/menno-simons/

sermonindex Jul 19, 2014

HI saints,

I have been kind of holding back on this particular thread. Not really sure where to start. I have studied church history extensively and the early church fathers so called. I would put the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church around 312 or so, prior to that they were known as the catholics, small c. The other main group were known as the Donatists. The catholic group were also known as "traidors" a derivative of the word traitor. The word traidor meaning to " hand over." What did they hand over? Other Christians and Scriptures to the Romans under the most severe persecution which lasted about 8-10 years and started around the year 300 under Diocletian. When the persecution ended, the catholics had great favor with the Romans because they had buckled under persecution, denied the faith and had traitorously handed over brothers and sisters to be killed and Scriptures that had been hidden.

Constantine favored the catholics when he came to power over the Donatists and began to pay the " bishops," and build the churches ( prior to this churches were in houses) Now, the split between these two groups was a long standing one going back into the mid to late 2nd century. The Novationists of that age complained bitterly that this catholic group had wilted under persecution. Anyway, the Catholic church was born as an establishment under Constantine and on his payroll. This Catholic church was corrupt from the beginning and only grew worse with power, and it was not long before they persecuted and killed people from the group known as the Donatists. This is the first instances of " Christians killing Christians." And history tells us that the Catholic church would go on and kill millions of people under the guise of " The Lord's work." Just because there were genuine saints within the ranks of Catholicism prior to the Reformation, in no way legitimizes the Catholic Church. The mass is a masterpiece of Satanic counterfeit whereby Jesus is " sacrficed," anew every week. The piece of bread is Jesus to them. This is not the Jesus of the Bible. Their system of leadership owes more to the ancient mystery religions than anything that is found in the Bible.

The Catholic church maximized, to the fullest, the ignorance of an almost entirely uneducated people. This is why they had such hatred towards the "laymen," preaching. God raises up leaders, servant leaders who , first and foremost, love the sheep. This is the key identity to a leader within the Body, His love and desire to serve rather than be served. It is very rare in our denominational system to find such men. Anyway, it would take volumes to describe the corruption, from the beginning, of what we know to be the Catholic church. From Maryology to co-redemptrix to transubstansiation to purgatory to salvation by works and faith ( in Catholicism one must be sanctified before one can be justified, think about that for a second) And on and on it goes, infallability, celibacy, praying to dead saints and the like. But, praise the Lord, millions of Catholics over the centuries, by the power of the Holy Spirit have came out of this great deception. They are a testimony and a trophy of Gods grace and mercy. That ones so raised and soaked in deception can find the truth and be delivered is a mighty miracle. Long may those miracles continue............bro frank

O

Oracio Jul 19, 2014

Mathew 24:9
Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who us in heaven.
Brethren this is a very, very serious admonition of Jesus. I am seeing some disturbing elements coming out in these threads. When I hear men ascribed as "church fathers" or "holy fathers" I get disturbed. And I see Ronan Catholicism.

Good point brother. From here on out I will refer to them as early church leaders instead and will be changing it in the title of this thread. Hope that's ok.

T

TMK Jul 19, 2014

Frank---

I have a sort of strange and unsettling question for you. Not long ago I read that one of the recent popes (not sure which) was part of a high satanic mass that took place in the Vatican that included sexual perversion and child sacrifice and many other dignitaries were present. Do you know anything about this and might this be true? I think some priest named Malcolm somebody wrote a book about it.

O

Oracio Jul 19, 2014

I think it can be very easy for us to misunderstand one another in discussing this issue, therefore the need to try to explain our terms and make any necessary distinctions in meanings.

When it comes to the issue of church leadership, the RCC's view is radically different from the Protestant view. The RCC teaches that Peter was the first pope and that the pope is infallible and is to be highly revered as thee leader of the whole Church, without question. They teach that the pope has the same type of apostolic authority as the 12 apostles. Furthermore, RCC teaches that popes and bishops and priests are to be celibate. And they teach that their extra-biblical traditions invented by church leaders are binding on God's people as much as God's Word.

The protestant view is that there is no such thing as a pope over the whole Church and there are no more authoritative apostles as the 12, but that Jesus is the Head of the Church and every local church is accountable to Him. Christ and His Word are the final authority, not any human leaders or traditions. Yes, there are leaders in the Church but not in the same way as in the RCC. Two completely different types of leadership.

M

MaryJane Jul 19, 2014

Greetings Frank

Thank you brother sharing these things here with everyone. Sadly there are many who are deceived into thinking the RCC is not so bad. Many think it just another christian church, nothing could be further from the truth. We need to pray for those lost in the lies of the catholic teaching, that their eyes be opened and they come to JESUS and repent.

You wrote:But, praise the Lord, millions of Catholics over the centuries, by the power of the Holy Spirit have came out of this great deception. They are a testimony and a trophy of Gods grace and mercy. That ones so raised and soaked in deception can find the truth and be delivered is a mighty miracle. Long may those miracles continue............bro frank
_________

Yes praise GOD for HIS mercy and grace and give thanks to HIM for those of us who have come to know JESUS and LORD and Savior. Amen to what you have shared and thank you.

God bless
mj

O

Oracio Jul 19, 2014

Sadly there are many who are deceived into thinking the RCC is not so bad. Many think it just another christian church, nothing could be further from the truth. We need to pray for those lost in the lies of the catholic teaching, that their eyes be opened and they come to JESUS and repent.

Amen. I too have had some experience with the RCC though not nearly as much as you and Frank. As a kid my mom took us to both types of churches, Protestant and Catholic. It was by attending both that I saw which was closer to the truth. It seemed that in the Protestant church there was more reverence for God and His Word. When I would go to the RCC I noticed that no one carried Bibles and right after the mass people would pop open their beers on the church parking lot and start downing them right there. I know full well how serious the deception is in the RCC. It is grieving when I consider it. I know that in Protestant churches there is also deception and even in solid churches there are many who are not truly saved. But by and large there is way more serious deception in the RCC and it is filled with way more lost people, people who worship and pray to Mary and the saints and statues and practice penance and say vain repetitious prayers and confess to priests and the list goes on and on. Not too far from my home there is a big statue of Mary on a front yard and I see many groups of people standing in front of it gazing at it in deep wonder. It grieves me every time I see that.

Knowing how serious it is I want no part of it or its history.

sermonindex Jul 19, 2014

I cant believe what you just wrote to Blaine.

i'm too tired to respond, properly....i'm just shocked.

sermonindex Jul 19, 2014

I cant believe what you just wrote to Blaine.
i'm too tired to respond, properly....i'm just shocked.

Dear brother, I am sorry these things shock you, I am just trying to encourage saints to consider to learn from church history and not just blanket statement it as black and white, wrong and right in large sums. The early church (leaders) fathers have much to teach evangelicals.

I see the admonition to call no man teacher also not obeyed by evangelism at large. We have to really consider what the Lord was saying, many other statement of our Lord could be taken in such a way and are.

Paul called himself a father:

New International Version
1 Corinthians 4:15

Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

again I am not advocating RCC I am simply encouraging saints to learn from church history some things that evangelicals perhaps could learn. It takes humility to say we are not perhaps right or perfect in our understanding of church.

O

Oracio Jul 19, 2014

Since I didn't find any RCC error in the writings of Polycarp of Smyrna and Clement of Rome, I am thinking it may not have been fair to include in the title of this thread, "Cultish or Not?". Therefore I will remove that part from the title.

That said, it still seems to me from the little I've read that much RCC error can be traced back to much earlier than some have suggested here. But I'll have to do more research to completely confirm that with quotes.

I know that definitely in the writings of Augustine there is much clear RCC dogma that is of grave concern and I would definitely not recommend His writings.