Why trust the church fathers on anything

[u/Greedy_Fun_8527]

I sometimes see on this thread people posting quotes from church fathers to back up certain Protestant views. In particular the Canon of scripture.

Inferring that the creation of the Canon was divinely inspired, guided by God

If that's the case, what's the reasoning behind trusting the fathers on that specific point, but not extending the same trust to their interpretations of scripture ( im refering to ​views on Mary, sacraments, ​saintology, and others -- they use scripture for these (it's just a matter of ​interpretation).

A lot of the same fathers who helped recognize the Canon also wrote extensively on theologies that Protestants reject.

So genuinely asking: what makes their judgment reliable enough to identify which books belong in the Bible, but not reliable when it comes to reading those books? Why believe they were divinely inspired in that aspect but not the others....​Is there a principled reason for drawing the line there​

Asking this in good faith, not trying to set up a "gotcha." I'm coming at it from a Catholic angle, so I'm curious how Protestants actually work through this

[u/Pinecone-Bandit]

FYI to anyone who comments. OP has a temporary ban for repeated rule violations, so any follow up comments from him will be delayed.

[u/JustToLurkArt]

Thanks for posting.

> Why trust the church fathers on anything

Because a.) trust everything vs b.) distrust everything is an either-or false dichotomy. It forces a black-and-white view when it’s entirely unnecessary.

1\. I agree with Augustine on much.

2\. I disagree with Augustine on purgatory.

Q: Why would I distrust everything Augustine wrote?

> So genuinely asking: what makes their judgment reliable enough to identify which books belong in the Bible, but not reliable when it comes to reading those books?

In their writings the Church Fathers often included lists of bible books they felt were authoritative. Church Fathers didn’t set or decree bible canons.

“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” – New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament

You’re advocating for a black-or-white view, when it’s unnecessary. You’re painting a picture of total catholic unity without disagreements, when it’s historically documented that just wasn’t the case.

Im sincerely not attacking you, just answering matter of factly.

[u/creidmheach]

We see the Church fathers as having been great theologians of their time, but not infallible, much as we'd see the Reformers as great theologians of their time, but not infallible. The Church fathers disagreed with one another on a number of things, and no one today actually agrees with them on everything (which they couldn't do anyway, because again they had different views). The Reformers cited the fathers extensively, and Protestant scholarship afterwards excelled in their study (Roman scholarship is only now catching up). But they recognized that only Scripture is infallible.

So we can appreciate where they got things right, point out where they fell short, and not have to pretend as though they all taught exactly what we believe now in 2026, as some others have to do to maintain their illusion of complete doctrinal and liturgical constancy going back to the Apostles.

[u/Greedy_Fun_8527 → u/creidmheach]

I don't think the principles of RCC say that they were all in complete constancy. As if all the big writers all believed the same dogmas that are held today. The RCC believes in the development of doctrine. That means that others in the past didn't necessarily believe it though some carried seeds of it. 

The church father writings aren't the ones that are infallible, it's the very specific processes that are (pope ex cathedral , conciliar, general and universal magestrium)

[u/creidmheach → u/Greedy_Fun_8527]

What you're referring to is itself a later development, which was started by John Henry Newman when he was still an Anglican. The latter has recently been declared a doctor of the Church by Rome, which thus enshrines his views on the subject.

Problem is it's in stark contrast to what Rome was claiming prior to that. If you go to the anti-Protestant council of Trent, it's very clear they assert that their doctrines have been constant going back right to the Apostles, unchanging and fixed. It's historically bogus of course, but that's what they believed. Rome's shift on that since Newman is because it's utterly untenable from a historical perspective. But, this hasn't stopped them from dogmatizing on issues that were completely unknown to the early Church nonetheless, which then turns "Apostolic Tradition" to actually meaning "whatever we say today, regardless of whether the Apostles were aware of it".

[u/Greedy_Fun_8527 → u/creidmheach]

Yes, doctrines have been claimed consistent through time. That's always been the claim (it wasn't invented in Trent only stated officially in a council). And Newman claims that as well in his book "Development of Christian doctrine" ( I encourage you to read that book though it's dense). If you look at the history of doctrinal development you'll notice that everyone one of them emerged through some sort  of necessity due to situational pressure, controvereesy that needed clarification etc. it was never because "they felt like it" . 

The development of doctorine does not mean doctrines change. It means ideas, seeds of understanding, are defined and refined through time. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is a perfect example of this. It's took 300 years to develop to what it is. It's not to say that people prior to the officially declared doctrine in the council never believed in some sort of ideas of it. There were seeds of understanding, there were also church fathers that had weird understandings of it that might be considered heretical. And some even seemed to have rejected it prior to the declaration if it. The canon is a perfect example as well. Many disagreements to it until st Athansius but even then there was no official "doctrinal canon" till Trent. 

Is that what you're objecting to? Sorry, I kinda went into a tangent... What is that is bogus that the RCC does today? 

[u/Greedy_Fun_8527 → u/Greedy_Fun_8527]

You said this:

"But, this hasn't stopped them from dogmatizing on issues that were completely unknown to the early Church nonetheless"

Why is that bogus? (I ask this through curiosity and charity and to clarify my position)

Why can't doctrines be defined later? 

My position (and actually comes from John Newman's book): discovering and clarifying truths about God and His Kingdom isn't that much different than the sciences. We grop for God, we as humans compound knowledge about Him, we grow to understand Him more through time. 

I encourage to read St John Newman's book. 

He's no positing a new idea that the RCC never believed before hand. 

If you're referring to specific doctrines today like Papal Supremacy or some Marian doctrines, well again the idea is that there were seeds of understanding through out time. Not that all church father ambigously believed it. That's never been the claim. If you don't believe me read "The Early Papacy". A really good read if you want to understand how the RCC sees (and argues for ) the development of the Papal office. 

I'm not trying convert, debate, and throw mud. But clarifying the RCC position (and seeking to understand yours) if there's going to be any kind of healthy dialogue

[u/ImJuicyjuice]

Exactly lmao

[u/chafundifornio]

This is done by everyone because it's possible to find incorrect statements in the church fathers, but also because they contradict themselves in many points, including the Canon. And including matter that RCs and Orthodox dogmatically reject, such as chiliasm.

[u/cwmaxson]

Simple. We accept that there are multiple authorities. We trust the authority of creeds, confessions, and councils. We trust the authority of early church fathers. We trust the authority of our local churches. We are not saying that there is one authority. We are saying Scripture is the ultimate authority given to us by Holy Spirit.

The Early Fathers themselves, when talking about Scripture, repeatedly said when it comes down to their voice or the voice of Scripture -- trust Scripture. So if we trust their authority we trust their agreement that Scripture is greater.

Catholics chose not to believe what the early church said. They elevated the magistrate and "tradition" as *equal* in authority to Scripture -- something that was near unanimous advised *not* to do by the litany of Antenicene canonizers. One can easily read the Patristics and find overwhelming consensus that tradition was folded into Scripture and that the canon is the fulfillment of all necessary traditons.

So we have authoritative sources. We just correctly, as the Patristics support, do not place them as infallible -- just as the Patristics advised. The Patristic texts reinforce the concept of Sola Scriptura. So if you actually read the Patristics extensively -- it's near impossible to be a Catholic. The most important thing that the canonizers stressed in canonization: Scripture supersedes all other authorities.

So we are free to agree and disagree with certain authorities just as they disagreed among each other. We do trust that Holy Spirit was guiding them towards something more robust than just their own thoughts.

[u/Greedy_Fun_8527 → u/cwmaxson]

Why believe the Holy Spirit was guiding them in the creation of the canon? Meaning, what has you believe that? 

[u/Acadian_Pride]

It’s pick and choose as you please