Protestants are woefully ignorant of church history, and non-Catholics are every bit as likely to be clinging to unscriptural tradition as Catholics are. Early Christian history could deliver us from a lot of these traditions and teach us much about the apostles understanding of the faith. Few people, however, like having their traditions challenged. Because were ignorant of early Christian history—something that was not true of Martin Luther and John Calvin —we have been deceived into believing that Catholic claims about the church fathers are true. The RCC does study and promote early Christian history. Non- Catholics, not knowing history themselves, believe Roman Catholic claims, such as that the early fathers worshipped liturgically, elevated the sacraments the way Roman Catholicism does, and had a hierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops, and a pope. These claims are not true, and contrary to the accusation of the Catholics who write me, I dont say that out of bitterness. The claims are just not true. For example ... Perhaps the most quoted early father in defense of a pope in the early churches was Cyprian, the head pastor of the church in Carthage. Yet, when Stephen, bishop of Rome, made a claim that he was a bishop over other bishops, Cyprian called a council of 87 north African bishops specifically to deny his claim. RCC authors neglect to tell you that Cyprian believed all bishops were the successor of Peter together, representing one united episcopal throne ( On the Unity of the Church 4-5). Instead, they quote his comments about Peter as though he meant the bishop of Rome. christian-history.org/roman-catholicism.html
Posted on: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:46:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015