In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Karlo Broussard to discuss the connections between the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers and Catholic doctrine. Karlo addresses the objections raised by the caller’s pastor and highlights the importance of engaging with historical evidence in faith discussions.
Transcript:
Caller: I’ve been listening to a few different Catholic apologists over the last couple of years. And, you know, my, my mind’s been changed on many things and it’s led me to read many of the Apostolic Fathers. And yeah, I’ve brought this up to my pastor before making any big decisions, and he’s basically told me that it’s not the same church that you’re reading about. So what’s your, what’s your take on that?
Karlo Broussard: Well, I mean, I have a few thoughts to share, James, but just for the sake of conversation, let me ask you, like, how. What are you, what are you thinking in response to that claim? I’m assuming you said you read some of the Apostolic Fathers.
Caller: Right.
Karlo Broussard: And you know, those early Church fathers who succeeded the apostles and the second first century and the second century, when, when you read those documents, were you seeing connections between what they were believing and what Catholics profess today? What are, what are your thoughts? I’ll share my thoughts as well for the sake of our conversation, because you called in and asked me. But I’m actually curious as to how you reacted to that sort of statement, given what you’ve been reading.
Caller: Well, I brought up a few points, such as baptism, the Eucharist, confession, and I just showed him these and I was like, well, I mean, just to start with these three points, I would say it’s, it’s pretty much the same doctrine from, from the early Apostolic Fathers to the present day church. And then he countered with such things as indulgences, you know, typical talking points. So kind of strayed away from doctrine.
Karlo Broussard: Yeah, yeah. So it’s kind of like, don’t look at the evidence, Focus on things. Don’t look at the things that are there. Focus on the things that you’re not seeing yet. And so it’s a bit of a red herring and a distraction to really what’s at issue there. And so I want to commend you, James, on providing that evidence. And, you know, it’s difficult when somebody is not willing to look at that evidence and engage that evidence. I could see if he had a counter reading of those texts and say, well, that’s not what they mean. You know, Catholics say they mean that, but here’s an alternative reading of the text that would have been fair game, but the fact that he’s entirely dismissing it and moving to other issues, that would be more ancillary. Right. Sort of further down the line when it comes to the importance of doctrines, that that’s a bit of an unfair tactic now with Regard to those things. You know, we can concede to some degree that there are things that we believe today, number one, that just we don’t have a record for in the early church fathers. That doesn’t mean they were not believing it. It just means we don’t have a record for it. And given the circumstances of the day and the limited amount of Christian sources that we have in relation to what would have been present and the sources that have been lost, it’s an unfair expectation that these early Christians would have been talking about every single thing under the sun, what Christians believe. They just weren’t setting out for that purpose to achieve that purpose. And so you’re going to have early Christian testimony and sources lacking attestation to certain things that we believe today, Mary’s bodily assumption being one of them. We don’t have attestation of that within Christian writings until the mid to late 4th century. We have some early 4th century heretical stuff that attest to it. But as far as Christian sources, not until the late 4th century. But that doesn’t mean it was not believed in the earlier centuries. So that would be a strategy to press and say, well, just because it’s not attested to, it does not follow that it wasn’t believed. And so he would have to shoulder the burden to explain why that particular belief that he brings up should be attested to in these early sources. He would have to make an argument for that proposition in order for his position to have any legs to it. And so you could press him on that. Like you, you’re expecting that belief should be present there. Why do you think that? I have an explanation as to why I shouldn’t be expecting those certain beliefs to be there. They weren’t setting out to explain those things and the conversations they were having. And so you could press that strategy. Now, there are also other things that we could possibly look to and think about whether secondly. Well, here’s one for certain. There are things that we believe and we express differently today than what the early Christians did. The essence would be there, but we, we express things differently. And so things look different today than they did in the early church. So that would be a route to take in identifying some of those issues. And then of course, that tether to that is this idea of development. There are certain things present in the early church, like Mary as new Eve. And then over time, Christians are able to unpack what that implies or entails, namely Mary’s freedom from original sin. And so you have the doctrine present in the early Christian testimony in seed form. But then it sprouts over time as Christians reflect upon that data and begin to see the implications of it. And so because Mary as new Eve and the prophecy of the new woman is contained within sacred scripture and sacred tradition, part of the divine revelation itself, that dogma is divinely revealed, even though when we look to that deposit, it’s there in seed form and doesn’t have the full flowering form that we have it today. And so once you have those principles in hand, James, then you can begin to assess each of those points that your pastor brings up.
Caller: Well, well, he did give counterpoints. It wasn’t a closed argument after, you know, after that. I mean, but his, his counter was basically through his interpretation of Scripture. So it was, you know, who’s right at that point. And my, my argument would be, well, I mean, would, would a modern day Christian have more understanding of something than one of the apostles? I mean, it just made more sense to me.
Karlo Broussard: Yeah, well, you know, I would affirm that, James, and that’s a good path and a good route to take in the conversation because you bring up a good point, because for most Protestants who don’t look to the early Christian, Christian fathers as infallible, nor do we as individuals, although the unanimous consensus is a means of infallibility. But from a Protestant perspective, those guys have no connection to infallibility whatsoever. And so if they teach something that contradicts how the Protestant is reading the sacred text, then the Protestant is going to reject them and say they’re wrong, which is fair game. But then of course, that brings up the question which interpretation is right? And then you begin to weigh the what’s more reasonable to go with an early Christian who is a disciple of one of the apostles, who knew the apostles who had the apostolic preaching ringing in their ears, are you going to go with a modern day Christian interpretation of that? And so I applaud you in taking that strategic approach. And I think that’s a fair approach to take. And you simply propose it and then let him chew on that.
Caller: Sure, yeah, I agree with that. Yeah.
Cy Kellett: Well, I’m very grateful for the call. I hope you will call many more times or certainly as long as you’ve got questions. But if you’ll hang on, Siobhan will send you a copy of the Early Church Was the Catholic Church by our friend and colleague Joe Heschmeyer. I’ll take a little bit early break and we’ll get right back to it since we’re so close to the break time anyways. Catholic Answers Live. Dr. Carlo Broussard is our guest. Our topic, well, Catholic doctrine.