The Fathers of the Church were individuals who lived and wrote during the early ages of the Church.

In order for a person to be recognized as one of the Fathers of the Church, four conditions have to be met. He must have been a writer of antiquity (before the death of John Damascene around A.D. 750), he must have been orthodox in his teaching, he must have been holy in his personal life, and he must have received Church approval.

In addition to the Fathers, there are certain other writers from the period whose works are still useful even though the writers did not deserve being called Fathers of the Church.

For example, Tertullian, who died in the early 200s, left many useful writings but is not a Father of the Church because before his death he left the Church and joined a false prophecy movement known as Montanism.

Those who are counted as Fathers include Pope Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Cyprian of Carthage, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, and many others. 

It is true that any proposed tradition that contradicts Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected.

From the Gnostic gospels (such as the Gospel of Thomas) and Marcion's edited version of Luke's Gospel and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings proposed by different groups for inclusion in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged or otherwise non-inspired writing."

So while a tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here; one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

He's wrong on both counts. First, the Catholic Church could admit the existence of other groups of Christians which had survived from the first century if any still existed, but none do. All of the heretical groups that split off in the first century died out. Anyone who claims that there was a line of doctrinally Protestant people going back through history to Jesus doesn't know Church history.

Second, while some groups, such as the Baptists, sometimes make this claim, they claim descent from heretical groups such as the Montanists (a false-prophecy movement that said the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia, on Montanus's home town), the Donatists (who said sacraments are efficacious only if they are administered by someone in a state of grace), and the Albigensians (who said there are two gods, a good god who loves us and an evil god who made the world). There is simply no way that these groups were Baptists under a different name.

Also incorrect is the notion, seriously offered by some Baptists, that the Baptists are descended from John the Baptist--otherwise, why else would they sport his title?

(This argument is analogous to the one given by ministers of the Protestant denomination that calls itself the Church of Christ. They say theirs must be the original Church because the name of the Church founded by Christ could be nothing other than "the Church of Christ." Naturally enough, this argument has not found favor with people who do not belong to that denomination.)

The Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.

Incidentally, the original Baptists practiced baptism by pouring (affusion) instead of dunking (immersion), although most of them today vigorously deny the validity of baptism by pouring. The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, finding no one qualified to baptize him, decided to baptize himself in 1639.

It would take an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra statement by the pope to settle the issue definitively (assuming non-Catholics would give either one credence), but it almost certainly would never happen.

The first problem we would have to settle is how to prove, after an absence of so many centuries, that the work in question really was by an apostle or an apostolic man. This in itself would be insurmountable. There is no way that we today could establish that the work was genuine.

The early Church judged which books were apostolic and which were not based on which had been handed down to them as apostolic by Church Tradition. Those books which had been widely handed down as apostolic were regarded as apostolic when the canon was settled in the late 300s.

But by definition we could not apply that test to a manuscript we just now dug up. It is difficult to imagine evidence that could show conclusively that it was written by an apostle rather than by someone pretending to be an apostle. (There were such individuals in the first century, and Paul had to warn against them and give his audience a way to know his letters were genuine; cf. 2 Thes 2:2, 3:17.)

The book would have to be unknown at the time the canon was settled in the 300s, because a negative judgment was passed at that time on all books which were known and were not identified as Scripture. Books not included in the canon by the Fathers of the 300s were rejected as uncanonical, meaning our newly discovered manuscript would need to have been lost before that time.

Here are excerpts from two articles on the canonization of saints; they are taken from The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967):

The solemn act by which the pope, with definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of saints a person who has previously been beatified. By this act he declares that the person placed on the altar now reigns in eternal glory and decrees that the universal Church show him the honor due to a saint. The formulas indicate that the pope imposes a precept on the faithful, e.g. "We decide and define that they are saints and inscribe them in the catalogue of saints, stating that their memory should be kept with pious devotion by the universal Church."

The faithful of the primitive Church believed that martyrs were perfect Christians and saints since they had shown the supreme proof of love by giving their lives for Christ; by their sufferings, they had attained eternal life and were indefectibly united to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. These reasons induced the Christians, still oppressed by persecution, to invoke the intercession of the martyrs. They begged them to intercede before God to obtain for the faithful on earth the grace to imitate the martyrs in the unquestioning and complete profession of faith (1 Tm 2:1-5, Phil 3:17) .

Toward the end of the great Roman persecutions, this phenomenon of veneration, which had been reserved to martyrs, was extended to those who, even without dying for the faith, had nonetheless defended it and suffered for it, confessors of the faith (confessores fidei). Within a short time, this same veneration was extended to those who had been outstanding for their exemplary Christian life, especially in austerity and penitence, as well as to those who excelled in Catholic doctrine (doctors), in apostolic zeal (bishops and missionaries), or in charity and the evangelical spirit. . . .

In the first centuries the popular fame or the vox populi represented in practice the only criterion by which a person's holiness was ascertained. A new element was gradually introduced, namely, the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, i.e., of the competent bishop. However, the fame of sanctity, as a result of which the faithful piously visited the person's tomb, invoked his intercession, and proclaimed the thaumaturgic [miraculous] effects of it, remained the starting point of those inquiries that culminated with a definite pronouncement on the part of the bishop. A biography of the deceased person and a history of his alleged miracles were presented to the bishop. Following a judgment of approval, the body was exhumed and transferred to an altar. Finally, a day was assigned for the celebration of the liturgical feast within the diocese or province.

The transition from episcopal to papal canonization came about somewhat casually. The custom was gradually introduced of having recourse to the pope in order to receive a formal approval of canonization. This practice was prompted obviously because a canonization decreed by the pope would necessarily have greater prestige, owing to his supreme authority. The first papal canonization of which there are positive documents was that of St. Udalricus in 973. . . . Through the gradual multiplications of the Roman pontiffs, papal canonization received a more definite structure and juridical value. Procedural norms were formulated, and such canonical processes became the main source of investigation into the saint's life and miracles. Under Gregory IX, this practice became the only legitimate form of inquiry (1234). . . .

The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, "Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err" (Quodl. 9:8:16).

The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching.

May the Church ever "uncanonize" a saint? Once completed, the act of canonization is irrevocable. In some cases a person has been popularly "canonized" without official solemnization by the Church . . . yet any act short of solemn canonization by the Roman pontiff is not an infallible declaration of sanctity. Should circumstances demand, the Church may limit the public cult of such a person popularly "canonized." (vol. 3, 55-56, 59, 61)

 

It is a mistake to believe that Jesus wasn't successful in influencing people to believe in him. The Pharisees and chief priests who had him arrested and killed testify otherwise. When Jesus entered triumphantly into Jerusalem, the Pharisees exclaimed, "Look, the whole world has gone after him" (Jn 12:19). When the chief priests and scribes were plotting a way to arrest and kill Jesus, they said, "Not during the festival [Passover], for fear that there may be a riot among the people" (Mk 14:2). The plotting and arrest were done at night for fear that the people would revolt. He was seized in Jerusalem where he had come for only a few short visits; most of his preaching and miracles were done in Galilee. The original Jewish converts lost their Jewish identity once they intermingled with Gentile Christians. This, along with the fact that modern Jews are descendants of those who rejected Jesus, gives us the mistaken notion that few were influenced by him 2,000 years ago.

While the assembled bishops at Vatican I did invoke the authority of the Fathers on the issue of papal primacy (cf. Sess. 4, ch. 4), they did not say that only those doctrines that enjoyed universal and unanimous consent of the Fathers were to be believed. In fact, Vatican I says nothing even remotely like that. It appeals to the testimony of the Fathers only briefly, after having first given a detailed elucidation from Scripture of the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility.

It's a matter of historical record that the Church Fathers disagreed on various issues. Some, such as Origen and Tertullian (who are not officially titled "Fathers," although they are ranked among the major theological writers of the early Church), even lapsed into heresy. The point is not that every Father agreed with every other Father on every issue--that would constitute an absolute mathematical unanimity, something which the Catholic Church does not claim. Rather, there was a moral unanimity of teaching among the Fathers. This means that doctrines such as the ones listed in your question were universally held and taught by the Catholic Church. Some Fathers wrote on these issues, to greater and lesser extents. Some never mentioned certain doctrines at all (at least not in their writings which have survived), and others can be seen to have held erroneous opinions about other doctrines.

The Catholic Church never has claimed that every Church Father at all times believed and taught every single Catholic doctrine in the sense that the Church teaches it. It is the Church as a single organic entity, the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-27) that always and everywhere has faithfully guarded and proclaimed the apostolic deposit of faith--not necessarily its individual members. This is true today. The Catholic Church universally teaches, as it always has, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. But there are droves of "Catholics" who, as a result of spiritual apathy or being poorly catechized, do not believe this doctrine as taught by the Church. This in no way contradicts the truth that the Church "universally" holds this doctrine.

Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy were universally taught in the early Church, as can be demonstrated by a study of patristic writings. (For starters, consider the many quotations from the Fathers on these issues in "The Fathers Know Best" department of This Rock). The Fathers appealed not only to Scripture as their doctrinal authority, but also to the Fathers who came before them, to show the constant tradition of Catholic teaching on a given subject.

Around 150 Irenaeus appealed to the traditional teachings of the Fathers (Against Heresies 2:2-4) to show that Catholic teaching could be established from both Scripture and Tradition. Tertullian appealed to the moral unanimity of the Fathers who preceded him to show the universality of Catholic doctrine:

[Is it plausible to imagine that the Holy Spirit] neglected his office, permitting the churches [dioceses] for a time to understand differently, and to believe differently, what he himself was preaching by the apostles; is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues [beliefs]. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. (Praescripciones 28)

Basil of Caesarea appealed to the testimony of the Fathers:

Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but [only] what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicaea is in use. (Letter 140:2)

Vincent of Lerins summarized the issue:

Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common, public, general persuasion. (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434])

 

 

 

Discovered in 1945 near the village of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, they are fourth-century papyrus manuscripts that formed part of a gnostic library. The writings are a valuable source of information about gnostic beliefs and practices. From them we can see more clearly the arguments and the theology the gnostics used in their attacks on the Catholic Church.

Although some writings are fragmentary, enough are still intact that a fairly clear picture of gnosticism emerges in the pseudo-gospels and epistles. Included in the Nag Hammadi collection are such spurious works as the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Philip, the Apocalypse of Paul, and the Gospel of Mary.

Scholars were delighted to discover several works whose existence was known in the early centuries of the Church but which were presumed lost. Perhaps the best treatment in English of these writings is The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).

Many Catholic theologians of the first several centuries devoted themselves to refuting the gnostic arguments, in particular, Irenaeus of Lyons (140-202), who wrote a devastating critique of gnosticism in his masterful five-volume work, Detection and Overthrow of the Gnosis Falsely So-Called, more commonly known as Against Heresies.

Gnosticism, which gets its name from the Greek word gnosis ("knowledge") was a religious movement beginning, possibly, before the time of Christ and extending into the first few centuries of the Christian era. Gnostics viewed themselves as "those who know." Their heretical teachings varied from group to group and can't be pinned down with specificity, but common gnostic beliefs included these:

1. Although Christ appeared to be human, his humanity was merely an illusion.

2. Christ appeared to die, but did not really die. The Crucifixion was really a crucifiction.

3. Christ was not truly God, the second Person of the Trinity. He was merely a created being who was the lowest of the aeons, a group of semi-divine beings between God and man. Each lower aeon was given power by a higher aeon. Christ, the aeon furthest removed from God, created the world because God was too pure to dirty himself with matter.

4. Matter is evil, so one can do anything one wants with one's body, including killing it to release the soul from its imprisonment.

5. The God of the Old Testament is evil, as evidenced by the fact that he created the material universe. He is not the same as the God of the New Testament, who is the God of Love, as Jesus and his apostles taught (1 Jn 4:8, 16).

6. People are saved by acquiring secret knowledge (gnosis), which is imparted only to the initiated.

Gnosticism was similar in some ways to the modern New Age movement. Like New Agers, gnostics used Christian terminology and symbols, but placed them in an alien religious context that gutted the essential teachings of Christ. It's unclear when gnosticism began. Many Church Fathers thought gnosticism was founded by Simon Magus, the Samaritan sorcerer who converted to Christianity (Acts 8:9-24). Some contemporary scholars think gnosticism started a few centuries before Christianity and then invaded it from the outside through the conversion to Christianity of Jewish and Gentile gnostics. Other scholars believe gnosticism started as a Christian heresy.

It seems clear, though, that the apostles themselves had to contend with a form of gnosticism (Col 2:8, 18; 1 Jn 4:1-3; Rv 2:6, 15). Paul said, "Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge [gnosis]. By professing it some people have deviated from the faith" (1 Tm 6:20-21).

The Baptist fellow is wrong and misled the audience. The Muratorian Fragment (so-called because it represents only a portion of the actual second-century document discovered in 1740 by Lodovico Antonio Muratori), is the oldest extant listing of New Testament-era books revered by early Christians. It was written sometime between 155 and 200. Patristic scholars believe the unknown author originally wrote the list in Greek (since the Latin is very poor), but the oldest copy available is an eighth-century Latin manuscript.

Although the Muratorian Fragment is important in studying how the early Church developed the New Testament canon, it doesn't give exactly the same list of books that was later adopted as canonical at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Muratorian Fragment is just that: a fragment of a larger list of books which were considered canonical or quasi-canonical during the second century.

The Fragment itself provides us with a good, though incomplete idea of this early canon. Virtually the entire New Testament canon as we know it is represented: the Gospels of Luke and John (preceded by what seems to be an allusion to the Gospel of Mark), Acts, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Jude, two letters of John (since the fragment simply says "the two ascribed to John," we don't know which two of his three letters are meant), and Revelation.

The unknown author adds other non-canonical books to this line- up: the so-called Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians (about which the Fragment's author expresses his conviction that they were not authored by Paul), the Wisdom Written by the Friends of Solomon in His Honor, the Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd (written by Hermas). The Fragment's list is cut short abruptly with a final, enigmatic phrase which may indicate that the author had gone on to include still other non-inspired writings: "Those also who wrote the new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians."

As you can see, although the Muratorian Fragment lists most of the New Testament books, it's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3 John), and it adds several works which are not inspired.

These facts demonstrate that, although the Fragment came close, it did not represent the actual canon of inspired Scripture. Further, there is no internal evidence in the document that it sought to represent any kind of official canon that was regarded by the Church as binding.

In the first four centuries of the Church many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement [the fourth pope] to the Corinthians, the Didache, and The Shepherd were revered by many Christians as inspired but were later shown to be non-inspired.

It was not until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.

The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.