Did I say they were wolves or that they were wrong about everything? You quote the ECF as if they were infallible. 
The ultimate criterion is the Word of God. Even in apostolic times, errors quickly spread among churches.
Roman Catholics love to point out that there was a general consensus among the church fathers that water baptism (including infant baptism) was the instrument of regeneration and washing away of sin. That settles the question for Roman Catholics, who are amazed that Evangelical Christians have the audacity to disagree with the Church Fathers on this matter. It may come as a surprise that Roman Catholics too do not follow the practice of the church fathers in the administration of baptism.
For example it was common practice that the candidate was immersed three times, whereas the modern Catholic rite consists of pouring water on the head. Before baptism, the candidate was anointed with "oil of exorcism" while the presbyter prayed, "Let all spirits flee far away from you." Apart from the fact that there is no scriptural warrant for this anointing, they were also mistaken in their belief that this oil served for the remission of sins even before baptism:
"Now this is blessed by the high priest for the remission of sins, and the first preparation for baptism. For he calls thus upon the unbegotten God, the Father of Christ, the King of all sensible and intelligible natures, that He would sanctify the oil in the name of the Lord Jesus, and impart to it spiritual grace and efficacious strength, the remission of sins, and the first preparation for the confession of baptism, that so the candidate for baptism, when he is anointed may be freed from all ungodliness, and may become worthy of initiation, according to the command of the Only-begotten." (Apostolic Constitutions, XLII)
During baptism, the candidates had to remove their clothing and stand naked in the water. The newly baptized was not allowed to take a bath for a whole week. Now I don't feel obliged to follow the fathers in their unscriptural inventions, changing the simple ordinance of Christ into a superstition, not to mention their disregard for public decency. (See Tertullian, The Crown; St Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition). These are the same people who insisted on baptismal regeneration.
I read an article in "The Ex-Catholic Journal" that says "some of the writings attributed to the Church Fathers have been found to be forgeries, while others have been taken out of context. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the papacy, purgatory and transubstantiation are alleged to be supported in these early writings." I hear Roman Catholics quote the Church Fathers a lot in an effort to support their doctrines. That is a red flag for me. The article went on to say that "most of the copies of copies of copies of the Church Fathers that we possess today were copied during the time that the Roman Catholic church controlled the flow of literature in Europe." That would explain a lot! We do not have any original copies of their writings, only copies of copies of copies which were copied and preserved by the Roman Catholic church. - https://xcjournal.org/the-errors-of-catholicism/church-fathers/
God promised to preserve His Word, found in the Bible, but not these early writings of the Church Fathers. We can fully trust in God's infallible Word, but not the fallible writings of men.
The ultimate criterion is the Word of God. Even in apostolic times, errors quickly spread among churches.Roman Catholics love to point out that there was a general consensus among the church fathers that water baptism (including infant baptism) was the instrument of regeneration and washing away of sin. That settles the question for Roman Catholics, who are amazed that Evangelical Christians have the audacity to disagree with the Church Fathers on this matter. It may come as a surprise that Roman Catholics too do not follow the practice of the church fathers in the administration of baptism.
For example it was common practice that the candidate was immersed three times, whereas the modern Catholic rite consists of pouring water on the head. Before baptism, the candidate was anointed with "oil of exorcism" while the presbyter prayed, "Let all spirits flee far away from you." Apart from the fact that there is no scriptural warrant for this anointing, they were also mistaken in their belief that this oil served for the remission of sins even before baptism:
"Now this is blessed by the high priest for the remission of sins, and the first preparation for baptism. For he calls thus upon the unbegotten God, the Father of Christ, the King of all sensible and intelligible natures, that He would sanctify the oil in the name of the Lord Jesus, and impart to it spiritual grace and efficacious strength, the remission of sins, and the first preparation for the confession of baptism, that so the candidate for baptism, when he is anointed may be freed from all ungodliness, and may become worthy of initiation, according to the command of the Only-begotten." (Apostolic Constitutions, XLII)
During baptism, the candidates had to remove their clothing and stand naked in the water. The newly baptized was not allowed to take a bath for a whole week. Now I don't feel obliged to follow the fathers in their unscriptural inventions, changing the simple ordinance of Christ into a superstition, not to mention their disregard for public decency. (See Tertullian, The Crown; St Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition). These are the same people who insisted on baptismal regeneration.
I read an article in "The Ex-Catholic Journal" that says "some of the writings attributed to the Church Fathers have been found to be forgeries, while others have been taken out of context. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the papacy, purgatory and transubstantiation are alleged to be supported in these early writings." I hear Roman Catholics quote the Church Fathers a lot in an effort to support their doctrines. That is a red flag for me. The article went on to say that "most of the copies of copies of copies of the Church Fathers that we possess today were copied during the time that the Roman Catholic church controlled the flow of literature in Europe." That would explain a lot! We do not have any original copies of their writings, only copies of copies of copies which were copied and preserved by the Roman Catholic church. - https://xcjournal.org/the-errors-of-catholicism/church-fathers/
God promised to preserve His Word, found in the Bible, but not these early writings of the Church Fathers. We can fully trust in God's infallible Word, but not the fallible writings of men.
-
3
- Show all
