Are we to believe what Fathers of the Church taught?

[polonius]

[polonius]

[ttruscott]

[marco]

[Jack]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

The Catholic Church does not consider the writing of the early church fathers inspired, but it does consider it a reliable source of history. These early writings contain a glimpse of what the early church was like, early heresy and the very names of the heretics that opposed church teaching. There is bible commentary, sermons, structure of the Sunday church service. A lot of these writings are from the first and second centuries. So many of these writings are from people that learned about Jesus directly from the original Apostles. Closer to the well spring before the water got muddied up.

[brianbbs67]

To the OP, yes. They all can be considered , just as the letters of the NT are. Some are way out there. "The gospel of the holy twelve " comes to mind. But, Peter's gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews and His "Apocalyse", seem to be exclude for no reason. Also the Gospel of Thomas. For that matter, Polycarp should be read also. His Epistle to Phillipians, is a great read. His student Iraneous, is anothter to consider.

http://bibletranslation.ws/down/Polycar ... ppians.pdf

[marco]

A lot of these writings are from the first and second centuries. So many of these writings are from people that learned about Jesus directly from the original Apostles. Closer to the well spring before the water got muddied up.

But even someone like Tertullian, a devout believer, was himself accused of heresy. In the early centuries there were many theories and as many heresies, so probably more muddled water than after Church Councils put things right, as they saw it.

[The Tanager]

To the OP, yes. They all can be considered , just as the letters of the NT are. Some are way out there. "The gospel of the holy twelve " comes to mind. But, Peter's gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews and His "Apocalyse", seem to be exclude for no reason. Also the Gospel of Thomas. For that matter, Polycarp should be read also. His Epistle to Phillipians, is a great read. His student Iraneous, is anothter to consider.

http://bibletranslation.ws/down/Polycar ... ppians.pdf

My understanding is that they were excluded for reasons. Either the authorship was contested or too far removed from the Apostles or they were written too late or they were not accepted by a wide enough circle of Christians. They could still be seen as helpful and reliable without affording it the level of God-breathed Scripture.

[polonius]

A lot of these writings are from the first and second centuries. So many of these writings are from people that learned about Jesus directly from the original Apostles. Closer to the well spring before the water got muddied up.

But even someone like Tertullian, a devout believer, was himself accused of heresy. In the early centuries there were many theories and as many heresies, so probably more muddled water than after Church Councils put things right, as they saw it.

QUESTION:

Didn't Tertullian eventually leave the Catholic Church?

[Jack]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

Yes he did. He joined a heretical group that believed private revelation trumps scripture, then he made up his own sect. Same thing happening today. I believe they where heavily based on Johns writings, they believed the end was soon and prophesized when it would happen, it didn't happen. Same thing happening today.