Question: "Who were the early church fathers?"

Answer: The early church fathers fall into three basic categories: apostolic fathers, ante-Nicene church fathers, and post-Nicene church fathers. The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred, and Clement took over from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers. However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived, while many of the writings of Clement of Rome survived. The apostolic fathers would have largely passed from the scene by the beginning of the second century, except for those few who might have been disciples of John, such as Polycarp. The tradition is that the apostle John died in Ephesus around A.D. 98.

The ante-Nicene fathers were those who came after the apostolic fathers and before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Such individuals as Iraenus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr are ante-Nicene fathers.

The post-Nicene church fathers are those who came after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. These are such noted men as Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine; Chrysostom, called the “golden-mouthed” for his excellent oratorical skills; and Eusebius, who wrote a history of the church from the birth of Jesus to A.D. 324, one year before the Council of Nicea. He is included in the post-Nicene era since he did not write his history until after the Council of Nicea was held. Other post-Nicene fathers were Jerome, who translated the Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and Ambrose, who was largely responsible for Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.

So, what did the early church fathers believe? The apostolic fathers were very concerned about the proclamation of the gospel being just as the apostles themselves proclaimed it. They were not interested in formulating theological doctrine, for the gospel they had learned from the apostles was quite sufficient for them. The apostolic fathers were as zealous as the apostles themselves in rooting out and exposing any false doctrine that cropped up in the early church. The orthodoxy of the message was preserved by the apostolic fathers' desire to stay true to the gospel taught to them by the apostles.

The ante-Nicene fathers also tried to stay true to the gospel, but they had an additional worry. Now there were several spurious writings claiming to have the same weight as the established writings of Paul, Peter, and Luke. The reason for these spurious documents was evident. If the body of Christ could be persuaded to receive a false document, then error would creep into the church. So the ante-Nicene fathers spent a lot of their time defending the Christian faith from false doctrine, and this led to the beginnings of the formation of accepted church doctrine.

The post-Nicene fathers carried out the mission of defending the gospel against all kinds of heresies, so more and more the post-Nicene fathers grew interested in methods of defending the gospel and less interested in transmitting the gospel in a true and pure form. Thus, they began to fall away from the orthodoxy which was the hallmark of the apostolic fathers. This was the age of the theologian and endless discussion on arcane topics such as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

The early church fathers are an example to us of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth. None of the early church fathers were perfect, just as none of us are perfect. Some of the early church fathers held beliefs that most Christians today consider to be incorrect. What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers. While we can gain knowledge and insight by studying the early church fathers, ultimately our faith must be in the Word of God, not in the writings of early Christian leaders. Only God’s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/early-church-fathers.html#ixzz3BzvbawMK

Good write up.... Now, I want you to separate the belief of the church fathers from that of the RCC... Cos the last time I checked, the church fathers writings and teachings are being used by the catholic and Orthodox churches. So, you just shot yourself in the leg...

Rich4god:

Good write up.... Now, I want you to separate the belief of the church fathers from that of the RCC... Cos the last time I checked, the church fathers writings and teachings are being used by the catholic and Orthodox churches. So, you just shot yourself in the leg...

We have the apostolic, ante nicene and post Nicene fathers. Which category do you think the RCC falls in? Equally tell us how the RCC has its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles when you compare their teachings of the papacy, the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix, petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture with the teachings of the apostolic fathers?

OLAADEGBU:

We have the apostolic, ante nicene and post Nicene fathers. Which category do you think the RCC falls in? Equally tell us how the RCC has its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles when you compare their teachings of the papacy, the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix, petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture with the teachings of the apostolic fathers?

All of them apostolic,ante-nicene and nicene fathers were all catholic.In fact it was even one of the Apostolic fathers St Ignatius of antioch that gave us the name cathlic church.The church fathers also practised the veneration of saints and the use of images

chukwudi44:

All of them apostolic,ante-nicene and nicene fathers were all catholic.In fact it was even one of the Apostolic fathers St Ignatius of antioch that gave us the name cathlic church.The church fathers also practised the veneration of saints and the use of images

I am drawing your attention to the excerpt below and see how the post Nicene church fathers drifted away from the real thing and drifted into what you now have as your traditions and dogmas today. They lost the plot.

The post-Nicene fathers carried out the mission of defending the gospel against all kinds of heresies, so more and more the post-Nicene fathers grew interested in methods of defending the gospel and less interested in transmitting the gospel in a true and pure form. Thus, they began to fall away from the orthodoxy which was the hallmark of the apostolic fathers. This was the age of the theologian and endless discussion on arcane topics such as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

OLAADEGBU:

I am drawing your attention to the excerpt below and see how the post Nicene church fathers drifted away from the real thing and drifted into what you now have as your traditions and dogmas today. They lost the plot.

The above is clearly your biased view... If the post-nicene fathers deviated from the traditions and teachings of the early church fathers, can you plz tell me or name the church fathers that stuck with the truth after the post-necene fathers deviated. Also, tell me those/church that continue upholding the teachings of the true church fathers since as you claim, the post nicene fathers deviated and ended up as the RCC. Will be waiting...

I don't understand. The Church time and time again has told you that we trace our history to Jesus. So all these one that you are trying to divide Early Christian Fathers into eras will not work. We own the history the good and the bad, the ugly and the beautiful!

OLAADEGBU:

I am drawing your attention to the excerpt below and see how the post Nicene church fathers drifted away from the real thing and drifted into what you now have as your traditions and dogmas today. They lost the plot.

OLADDEGBU I WANT YOU TO QUOTE THIS CHURCH FATHERS!!! THEY DID NOT WRITE DOWN THE ABOVE STATEMENTS!!!SHOW ME FROM THEIR WRITINGS WHAT THEY BELEIVED IN AND WHAT THEY PRACTISED AND HOW IT IS DIFFERANT FROM TODAY'S CATHLIC CHURCH

Irenaeus


“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).


Ignatius of Antioch


“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr


“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


Irenaeus


“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).


Clement of Alexandria


“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


Tertullian


“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).


Hippolytus


“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).


Origen


“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage


“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).


Council of Nicaea I


“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


Aphraahat the Persian Sage


“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).


Cyril of Jerusalem


“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).


Ambrose of Milan


“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).


Theodore of Mopsuestia


“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).


Augustine


“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).


Council of Ephesus


“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united
http://www.churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/the-real-presence/

THE CHURCH FATHERS ON THE INTERCESSION OF SAINTS


Hermas


“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’” (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).


Clement of Alexandria


“In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]” (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).


Origen


“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).


Cyprian of Carthage


“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy” (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).


Anonymous


“Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins” (funerary inscription near St. Sabina’s in Rome [A.D. 300]).

“Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days” (ibid.).

“Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger” (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).


Methodius


“Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing Mother, with the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father—the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

“Therefore, we pray [ask] you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid.).

“And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with you, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, ‘You are the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God’” (ibid.).


Cyril of Jerusalem


“Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition . . . ” (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).


Hilary of Poitiers


“To those who wish to stand [in God’s grace], neither the guardianship of saints nor the defenses of angels are wanting” (Commentary on the Psalms 124:5:6 [A.D. 365]).


Ephraim the Syrian


“You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us so that we may love him” (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).

“Remember me, you heirs of God, you brethren of Christ; supplicate the Savior earnestly for me, that I may be freed through Christ from him that fights against me day by day” (The Fear at the End of Life [A.D. 370]).


The Liturgy of St. Basil


“By the command of your only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of your saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of your holy name” (Liturgy of St. Basil [A.D. 373]).


Pectorius


“Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ]” (Epitaph of Pectorius [A.D. 375]).


Gregory of Nazianz


“May you [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd this sacred flock . . . gladden the Holy Trinity, before which you stand” (Orations 17[24] [A.D. 380]).

“Yes, I am well assured that [my father’s] intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay that obscured it, and holds conversation naked with the unclothedness of the prime and purest mind . . . ” (ibid., 18:4).


Gregory of Nyssa


“[Ephraim], you who are standing at the divine altar [in heaven] . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom” (Sermon on Ephraim the Syrian [A.D. 380]).


John Chrysostom


“He that wears the purple [i.e., a royal man] . . . stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God, and he that wears a diadem begs the tentmaker [Paul] and the fisherman [Peter] as patrons, even though they be dead” (Homilies on Second Corinthians 26 [A.D. 392]).

“When you perceive that God is chastening you, fly not to his enemies . . . but to his friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to him, and who have great power [in God]” (Orations 8:6 [A.D. 396]).


Ambrose of Milan


“May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ’s benign countenance” (The Six Days Work 5:25:90 [A.D. 393]).


Jerome


“You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard. . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?” (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).


Augustine


“A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers” (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

“At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps” (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

“Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ” (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).

http://www.churchfathers.org/category/mary-and-the-saints/the-intercession-of-the-saints/

@Chuks... Allow him let him keep shooting himself... Like I have asked him time witouth numbers... Let him name those church fathers that didnt believe in what the RCC teaches now and also name the church that the true fathers(according to him) holds unto.

The excerpt extracted from the OP sums it up:

The early church fathers are an example to us of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth. None of the early church fathers were perfect, just as none of us are perfect. Some of the early church fathers held beliefs that most Christians today consider to be incorrect. What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers. While we can gain knowledge and insight by studying the early church fathers, ultimately our faith must be in the Word of God, not in the writings of early Christian leaders. Only God’s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice.

OLAADEGBU: The excerpt extracted from the OP sums it up:

DID THE CHURCH FATHRS WRITE THAT? THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS NO.SOME MISCHIEVOUS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WROTE DOWN A BUNCH IOF LIES AND SCRIBED THE TO THE CHURCH FATHERS!! PLEASE LET THESE MEN SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

[/quote]not in the writings of early Christian leaders. Only God’s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice. [quote]

HOW DID WE GET TO KNOW THE 73 SCRIPTURES FROM THE COLLECTION OF OVER 200 SCRIPTURES HAT WERE IN CIRCULATION?

ANSWER; THE CHURCH FATHERS TOLD US WHICH BOOKS TO READ.SO CASE CLOSED

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY GOSPELS WHICH WERE IN CIRCULATION? IF WE ARE TO DISREGARD THE WRITINGS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS WE CAN AS WELL DISCARD THE CANON THEY GAVE US WHICH YOU CALL THE WORD OF GOD

IF I AM TO CHOSE BETWEEN THE CHURCH FATHERS WHO GAVE US THE BIBLE AND OLADEEGBU!!! YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE

chukwudi44:

IF I AM TO CHOSE BETWEEN THE CHURCH FATHERS WHO GAVE US THE BIBLE AND OLADEEGBU!!! YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE

Your choice should rather be between the apostles or the post nicene church fathers and it is obvious that you choice is your church fathers.

OLAADEGBU:

Your choice should rather be between the apostles or the post nicene church fathers and it is obvious that you choice is your church fathers.

So how does one know what the apostles wrote without the church fathers? Did the authours of the four gospel disclose their identity? How do we know this gospels are genuine or that tey were written by their acclaimed authours? We have also gospels credited to Peter,Mary etc why are we not reading those ones abi them nobi apostles?

Hope you get my point? We did not meet the apostles,the church fathers did and they have told us what the apostles taught!!! So we can never do away with the teachings of the church fathers

OLAADEGBU:

Your choice should rather be between the apostles or the post nicene church fathers and it is obvious that you choice is your church fathers.

So how does one know what the apostles wrote without the church fathers? Did the authours of the four gospel disclose their identity? How do we know this gospels are genuine or that tey were written by their acclaimed authours? We have also gospels credited to Peter,Mary etc why are we not reading those ones abi them nobi apostles?

Hope you get my point? We did not meet the apostles,the church fathers did and they have told us what the apostles taught!!! So we can never do away with the teachings of the church fathers.All this your imaginary nicene and ante-nicene dichotomy you are trying to create is just too ridiculous.Not even the apostolic nor the so-called nicene fathers agree with the teachings of the modern protestant or pentecostal churches!!

Firstsly none of them practised sola scripture as the bible obviously did not even exist during their time.They practised the veneration of saints and use of images today despised by the protestant church. I can go on and on

Mary in the Early Church
by Dr. Mark Miravalle

As in Scripture, so too in the infant Church we see the attention of the faithful rightfully focused first and foremost on Jesus Christ. The divine primacy of Jesus Christ (with its appropriate worship of adoration) had to be clearly established before any subordinate corresponding devotion to his Mother could be properly exercised. Nonetheless, the beginnings of acknowledgement and devotion to the Mother of Jesus is present from apostolic times in the living Tradition of the early Church.

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the "praying one," the woman of prayer. (1)

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as "Mother of the Church." Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary's prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior's Mother in his young Church.

It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that the Mother of Jesus was also recognized for her maternal intercession of protection and defense. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs. Clearly, the early Christians dwelling in the catacombs prayed to Mary as intercessor to her Son for special protection and for motherly assistance. As early as the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary's role as Spiritual Mother was recognized and her protective intercession was invoked. (2)

The early Church Fathers, (also by the middle of the second century), articulated the primary theological role of the Blessed Virgin as the "New Eve." What was the basic understanding of Mary as the "New Eve" in the early Church? Eve, the original "mother of the living," had played an instrumental, though secondary role, in the sin of Adam which resulted in the tragic fall of humanity from God's grace. However, Mary, as the new Mother of the living, played an instrumental, though secondary, role to Jesus, the New Adam, in redeeming and restoring the life of grace to the human family.

Let us examine a few citations from the early Church Fathers that manifest this growing understanding of Mary's spiritual and maternal role as the "New Eve," who as the "new Mother of the living," participates with Christ in restoring grace to the human family.

St. Justin Martyr (d.165), the early Church's first great apologist, describes Mary as the "obedient virgin" through whom humanity receives its Savior, in contrast to Eve, the "disobedient virgin," who brings death and disobedience to the human race:

(The Son of God) became man through the Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings.... And through her was he born…. (3)

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (d.202), great defender of Christian orthodoxy and arguably the first true Mariologist, establishes Mary as the New Eve who participates with Jesus Christ in the work of salvation, becoming through her obedience the "cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race":

Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a Virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.... And so it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by Mary's obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief. (4)

The teaching of St. Irenaeus makes evident the Early Church's faith and understanding that Mary freely and uniquely cooperates with and under Jesus, the New Adam, in the salvation of the human race. This early patristic understanding of Mary's unique cooperation appropriately develops into the later and more specified theology of Marian Coredemption.

St. Ambrose (d.397) continues to develop the New Eve understanding, referring to Mary as the "Mother of Salvation":

It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from Paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God....Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary Mother of salvation. (5)

St. Jerome (d.420) neatly summarizes the entire patristic understanding of the New Eve in the pithy expression: "death through Eve, life through Mary." (6)

The Second Vatican Council confirms this early understanding of Mary as the "New Eve" by the Church Fathers, as well as the Fathers' certain testimony to her active and unique participation in man's salvation:

Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience.... Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him (Irenaeus) in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound by her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "death through Eve, life through Mary" (

Rich4god: The above is clearly your biased view... If the post-nicene fathers deviated from the traditions and teachings of the early church fathers, can you plz tell me or name the church fathers that stuck with the truth after the post-necene fathers deviated. Also, tell me those/church that continue upholding the teachings of the true church fathers since as you claim, the post nicene fathers deviated and ended up as the RCC. Will be waiting...

@Ola... Answer this na... Why are you running away...

chukwudi44:

So how does one know what the apostles wrote without the church fathers? Did the authours of the four gospel disclose their identity? How do we know this gospels are genuine or that tey were written by their acclaimed authours? We have also gospels credited to Peter,Mary etc why are we not reading those ones abi them nobi apostles?

Hope you get my point? We did not meet the apostles,the church fathers did and they have told us what the apostles taught!!! So we can never do away with the teachings of the church fathers

Check the differences between the Christian Church and the Roman Catholic church as tabulated in the link below:

Rich4god:

@Ola... Answer this na... Why are you running away...

Your answer is in the link below don't hesitate to click on it.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

OLAADEGBU:

Check the differences between the Christian Church and the Roman Catholic church as tabulated in the link below:



Your answer is in the link below don't hesitate to click on it.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

This thread about the church fathers!! Stop derailing your own thread!!! Answer the posers I raised and stopped dodging.

But seriously are you so intellectually vacuos that you cannot even compose a rebuttal yourself? All this resorts to links and links is becoming monotonous!! Studey dude!! Form your own opinions

OLAADEGBU:

Check the differences between the Christian Church and the Roman Catholic church as tabulated in the link below:



Your answer is in the link below don't hesitate to click on it.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

You knw am not clicking on some lies that was written by an individual like you... The Christian church you are talking about started through Luther. Were was the original church be fore Luther came up.

Olaadegbu you're funny man..if I start posting write ups of these men, you would throw away your protesting cloak.. It's a shame that you don't want to realise after these expose.


Can't even formulate your own opinions, always wanting to refer to some link of people's opinions.. for fact Really laughable