You are more Roman Catholic than you think

[trifecta]

A poster challenged me recently when I said that you have more in common with the Roman Catholics than you think.   This is fine and fair.  Here is my response.

Firstly, I am not going to talk about the contributions of the early church to your beliefs.  This is very important, but I want to limit this long post to just the Roman Catholic church.

Since Protestantism is a "child" of Roman Catholicism, it must share things in common.   Now, you don't have to like your parents, but you can't escape that you have some of their characteristics.  I am not being saying the parent is greater than the child; after all,  Christianity is a child of Judaism.  (Sidebar: Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is an ex-spouse of Roman Catholicism, not its child.  Rome wrote the divorce decree; Constantinople signed it willingly.  As in any good divorce, both parties are sorry that it had to come to that.)

   Here are some examples about Protestant practices that come from its parent the RCC.  Let's start with ways we worship.  Protestants bow their heads when praying and often close their eyes.  Orthodox generally do not (especially in the east).  What happened to "greeting each other with the holy kiss

[Bon Voyage]

Interesting post.  Don't have much to disagree with at the moment either.

[saved]

good post trifecta.

and of course we share similar ideaologies with rome.

but there are many important differences.

oh, and the parent/child analogy is a bad one in my case.

my parents were not saved. 

[Jon-Marc]

The word "Catholic" simply means "universal". So in that respect I am catholic, but that's where the similarity ends. I don't believe in baptizing babies. I don't pray to dead saints or to Mary or to dead statues. I don't confess my sins to a mere mortal who can't forgive them and needs the Saviour himself. I don't carry a crucifix or string of beads. I don't believe the pope is any more holy than Christians I have personally known. He is a mere mortal who needs to be saved like the rest of us. I don't believe that Mary was sinless, but that she also needed to be saved. I see nothing wrong with contraception and preventing unwanted births by not getting pregnant. I believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY mediator between us and the Father. I believe very little what they do and deny much of what they believe.

[Bon Voyage]

Jon-Marc,

Of course most of us have disagreements with teachings in the RCC, but did you have any agreement with points one through four in trifecta's post?

[CSloan]

The word "Catholic" simply means "universal". So in that respect I am catholic, but that's where the similarity ends.

Amen.

Catholicism is not Christianity, no matter how they try to masquerade as Christianity.

Manna

[Machaira]

Trifecta,

It would seem that the points of similarity that you cite between Rome and Protestants are shallow or surface-level at best. To consider something like the filioque controversy to be a "weighty matter" is really a stretch. It would seem to me that the yawning casm between Rome and Protestants involve matters that are vastly more important than the things you mention. Justification, for example, strikes at the very heart of the Gospel. Get that wrong and nothing else matters.

[blituri]

It  is true that Roman Catholicism is built almost totally on Judaism.  And the Monarchy, king, temple, sacrificial system which demanded exorcism sound (never called music) was necessary to "call down" the good spirits and chase away the demons was abandonment to Babyloniasm.  This was a curse imposed because by their worship at Mount Sinai and specific request for a King.  This restored Babylonianism totally. Even the temple mount is pictured by older art as a ziggurat.

        "A major task facing our churches is the reintegration of the Old Testament into the regular teaching, thinking and practice of the church" (p. 49). A once-Christian college, 3 PhDuhs calling down God's Fire.

Others claiming Phds in the church are calling for a restoration of Jewish practices into the church.  This includes using the plague stopping exorcism of Hezekiah's reform to purge the temple and Jerusalem of fire worship devoted to Molech. One preacher has convinced or coerced his group under the inputs of David Faust that "God commanded instrumental praise and we should not be disobedient."  The whole system of Rome is built on Jerusalem which is Built on Babylonia which John called Sodom.  This includes priests (dominant pastors), the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice and claiming the Levitical singers as authority for music in the church.  The Catholic Encyclopedia (sorry, you will have to look up the link)

     We need not shrink from admitting that CANDLES, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and in the rites paid to the DEAD.  [The Marzeah in Amos 5-9 Agapae in Greece]

But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendour of religious ceremonial. [oulawed by Jesus]

We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like MUSIC, LIGHTS, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments, etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; they were COMMON TO ALMOST ALL CULTS.

You remember that Solomon was certain that God LIVED in the DARK of the Most Holy Place.  However, this was a MARK that God, His Word and His Mercy had been taken away from the people.  Hislop notes (Sorry, can't link).

    In Pagan processions: "these were usually followed by the principal youth of the place, in white linen vestments or surplices, singing hymns in honour of the gods whose festivals they were celebrating, accompanied by crowds of all sorts that were initiated in the same religion, all with flambeaux or wax-candles in their hands."

Now, so thoroughly and exclusively PAGAN was this custom of lighting up lamps and CANDLES in daylight, that we find Christian writers, such as Lactantius, in the fourth century, exposing the absurdity of the practice,

        and deriding the Romans "for lighting up candles to God,
        as if He lived in the dark."

[ann]

Do you actually mean

You are more CATHOLIC than you think you are....

[Harold]

Of the four you mention, I still don't get the point.

Aside from your four points I would like to add a few.

1) I don't worship Mary.

2) I don't pray to saints.

3) I don't buy or sell indulgences, in whatever form they may take.

4) I don't do penance for forgiveness of sin, I speak to Jesus.

In your comparisons I get the idea you are promoting the Eastern Church as the real Protestants.

FTL

[spurly]

Just looking at this board I can tell how the protestant move away from the authority of the church has led to much division in the body of Christ - both within and without denominational or brotherhood walls. 

I understand there was division before the protestant reformation both inside the catholic church and between east and west, but those division have multiplied since the protestant reformation began.  I have no doubt this breaks our Lord's heart.  How can a body function properly when it is so fractured?

How can we obtain the unity our Lord prayed for before his crucifixion?

[blituri]

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were,
         and thou gavest them me;
         and they have kept thy word.

John 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are OF THEE

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the WORDS which thou gavest me;
          and they have received them,
          and have known surely that I came out from thee,
          and they have BELIEVED that thou didst send me.

John 17:9 I pray for THEM: I pray not for the world,
           but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

John 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.
           Holy Father, keep through thine OWN NAME
           those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world,
           I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept,
           and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition;
           that the scripture might be fulfilled.

John 17:13 And now COME I TO THEE;
          and these things I SPEAK in the world,
           that they might have my joy FULFILLED in themselves.

John 17:14 I have given them
           THY WORD; and
           the world hath HATETH them,
           because they are not of the world,
           even as I am not of the world.

John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 17:17 SANCTIFY them
           through THY TRUTH:
           thy WORD is TRUTH

[CSloan]

How can we obtain the unity our Lord prayed for before his crucifixion?

Phl 1:27
Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; 

[Jon-Marc]

Jon-Marc,

Of course most of us have disagreements with teachings in the RCC, but did you have any agreement with points one through four in trifecta's post?

I didn't understand it enough to know.

[CSloan]

All Christians share certain commonalities with groups like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many other deviant cults. That doesn't make those Christians into Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, or anything else. Just because these cults share (more like steal) principal truths from Christianity, doesn't make their doctrines any less false.

[Jon-Marc]

Pretty much all false religions have a little truth in them. That's how satan deceives people--by using a little truth mixed in with all the lies.

[House]

Pretty much all false religions have a little truth in them. That's how satan deceives people--by using a little truth mixed in with all the lies.

I believe Satan did that with Eve.  Mixed a little truth with a lot of lies.

[broach972]

This is a very good article, but I must take issue with some points.  Trifecta, I would like to say now that I really enjoy your posts.  You really pose some good questions and observations  It is clear that you really want to learn and despite your disagreements, you at least show some respect for Catholics and the Catholic faith in general.

Since Protestantism is a "child" of Roman Catholicism, it must share things in common.   Now, you don't have to like your parents, but you can't escape that you have some of their characteristics.  I am not being saying the parent is greater than the child; after all,  Christianity is a child of Judaism.  (Sidebar: Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is an ex-spouse of Roman Catholicism, not its child.  Rome wrote the divorce decree; Constantinople signed it willingly.  As in any good divorce, both parties are sorry that it had to come to that.)

Actually, the Reformation was the "child" of the Renaissance.  I do agree with your observation of the Catholic and Orthodox Church though.  It was certainly a divorce because neither one could figure out who the "head of the household" would be.

Here are some examples about Protestant practices that come from its parent the RCC.  Let's start with ways we worship.  Protestants bow their heads when praying and often close their eyes.  Orthodox generally do not (especially in the east).  What happened to "greeting each other with the holy kiss

[kensington]

I am not at all Catholic or even like them.  To be Catholic, one must be religious, do things religiously, and practice religion.

I don't do anything religious or religiously. 

Being related to tons of Catholics and very close to my sil who has 8 kids, I have the wonderful gift of attending many mass' a year... too many.  And I know and assured that I am not at all Catholic.

[Bon Voyage]

I am not a Catholic, but I can't say that my congregation was created in a vacuum reading the bible without rose colored glasses either.

[broach972]

I am not at all Catholic or even like them.  To be Catholic, one must be religious, do things religiously, and practice religion.

I don't do anything religious or religiously. 

Does this mean that you don't pray, worship God, sing his praises, read/recite Scripture, or observe Christmas and Easter?  Please elaborate on what excactly is "anything religious or religiously."

[trifecta]

The word "Catholic" simply means "universal".

Actually, the people who gave us that definition are, you guessed it, our friends in Rome.  There is a familiar Greek-based word that means universal.  It is ecumenical.

The original meaning of catholic means "completeness and whole."

Thank you to Gary, Saved, and Broach for your comments.  Some of the rest of you didn't understand the meaning of the OP, but that's okay, it was quite long.

trifecta
 

[covnitkepr1]

Nothing catholic about me. I belong to the church that existed before catholicisim existed. The first church. The one started on the day of pentecost. Acts2:38. It's the one you can't join, the Lord adds you to it...His church...Acts 2:47. I don't protest the catholic church, so I'm not a protestant...I'm just a Christian. I just wish that more men would make that claim.     

[sopranette]

The word "Catholic" simply means "universal". So in that respect I am catholic, but that's where the similarity ends.

Amen.

Catholicism is not Christianity, no matter how they try to masquerade as Christianity.

Manna

I would disagree.  I know personaly many who have terrible doctine, but they have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour.

love,

sopranette

[stevehut]

Trifecta is right, many Prot's are more Catholic than they want to admit.  Many of our beliefs and practices today come not from Jerusalem, but from Rome.

[trifecta]

Trifecta is right, many Prot's are more Catholic than they want to admit.  Many of our beliefs and practices today come not from Jerusalem, but from Rome.

Thanks, Steve.  We might not agree on everything, but I like when we do!

Nothing catholic about me.

Thank you too covnitkepr for resurrecting this thread.  Please read the original post
and you will see your above statement is impossible.   To summarize, you (and me) were
born into a western culture.  Even if you don't like your parents, they undoubtedly had a strong impact on who you are.  Similarly, you may dislike the RCCs, but their influence is in your life.  No one escapes culture.  (The OP gives concrete examples of the influence of RCC in your worship.)

I belong to the church that existed before catholicisim existed. The first church.

You (and many Protestants) need to study church history.  The first church was indeed the Catholic church.  (It wasn't called that for a short while, but Catholic became the name pretty quickly.)  The only alternatives were the Gnostics and other heretical peoples.  (Now, the term Roman Catholic comes later.)

The one started on the day of pentecost. Acts2:38. It's the one you can't join, the Lord adds you to it...His church...Acts 2:47.

The Lord indeed must add us to the church, but the church is real and physical (as well as spiritual)

I don't protest the catholic church, so I'm not a protestant...I'm just a Christian. I just wish that more men would make that claim.    

We need to identify ourselves so that others can understand who we are.  In the early church, Catholic was used to separate from Gnostics, Montanists, Marcions etc.  All these churches considered themselves Christians. 

Today, Catholics consider themselves to be Christians too.  So by using the term "Christian," you identify yourself with them as well.  Labels are certainly not everything, but you might as well use the clearest terms possible.


   

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The word "Catholic" simply means "universal". So in that respect I am catholic, but that's where the similarity ends.

Amen.

Catholicism is not Christianity, no matter how they try to masquerade as Christianity.

Manna

I would disagree.  I know personaly many who have terrible doctine, but they have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour.

love,

sopranette

Yup yup.  "Lord and Savior" though.  I don't like to seperate them.

[Bon Voyage]

Food for thought:

Church of Christ-ism or Methodism or Lutheranism (insert any other group) is not Christianity, no matter how they try to masquerade as Christianity.

[stevehut]

(insert any other group) is not Christianity, no matter how they try to masquerade as Christianity.

Which is exactly what I call myself a just-plain-Christian, nothing else.

[sopranette]

The word "Catholic" simply means "universal". So in that respect I am catholic, but that's where the similarity ends.

Amen.

Catholicism is not Christianity, no matter how they try to masquerade as Christianity.

Manna

I would disagree.  I know personaly many who have terrible doctine, but they have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour.

love,

sopranette

Yup yup.  "Lord and Savior" though.  I don't like to seperate them.

Me, either.  But I have used that as a starting point when talking to Catholics more times than I can remember.

love,

Sopranette

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Since Protestantism is a "child" of Roman Catholicism, it must share things in common.   Now, you don't have to like your parents, but you can't escape that you have some of their characteristics.  I am not being saying the parent is greater than the child; after all,  Christianity is a child of Judaism.

One says Protestantism is a child of Catholicism, one says its a child of the enlightenment/Renaissance.  Both are right...to a point...but there's much more to it than that.

The Renaissance was diametrically opposed to Catholicism in most points.  Some few theologian/philosophers made the attempt to reconcile them, but on the whole, they were opposing forces.

Protestantism isn't so much a child of the two (not a synthesis) as the end result of a train wreck of a collision.  You take the established order of Catholicism, and put it through a crucible and a torture test in rationalism, and what you come out with on the other end is a stripped-down version of the original that has been purged of those things that simply didn't cut the mustard logically.

I would argue that Protestant-ism isn't so much the child of the two, as it is the post-boot-camp version of Catholicism.

1)   The role of reason and rationality.  To the west, we feel everything must be examined by reason.  In fact, God is above reason and, if you haven't noticed, has much mystery about Him.  It has something to do with using Greek philosophy to explain Christian concepts.  There is nothing wrong with this, but the west got carried away starting with Thomas Acquinas, I think.  Roman Catholics do recognize mystery, but the Protestant fathers went whole hog with the rationality idea.

You have a point, but you take it too far.  Christianity is very much about the mind.  Didn't God call Himself LOGOS?  Is God not "all mind?"  What about "repent" ? - isn't that mental?  Believe - mental again.  Isn't "spirit" part and parcel that comes with mind?

When we don't understand something, it's usually because we're trying to put a puzzle together, and we don't have all the pieces.

We can shrug and call it a mystery, or we can go look under the bed for the rest of the pieces.  The 2nd option is the greater.  Problems arise when we try to make our own pieces, and that certainly is a Protestant problem...but it's also a Catholic problem, and an Orthodox problem...and a human problem in general.

2)   Comfort with uncertainty.  Related is the idea of uncertainty.  There are parts of eastern theology which say, we just don't know about, while the West demands an explanation, even if you have to make one up.  Example: Real Presence in Communion.  Orthodox admit they don't understand how the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus, but they just do.  Catholics insist on an explanation called transubstantiation.  Of course, most Protestants, over the strong objections of Martin Luther, have dumped the whole idea of Real Presence.

Some things just shouldn't be taken as literal.  Making up explanations is a problem.  Not bothering to understand is an equal and opposite problem, I think.

3)   Inventing the church.  Both Catholics and Protestants feel the need to invent, develop, or reclaim the church.  Catholics do it with the idea that doctrine is "developed.

[trifecta]

Hello Jarrod,

Protestantism isn't so much a child of the two (not a synthesis) as the end result of a train wreck of a collision.  You take the established order of Catholicism, and put it through a crucible and a torture test in rationalism, and what you come out with on the other end is a stripped-down version of the original

I like your analogies.  I really do 

that has been purged of those things that simply didn't cut the mustard logically.

This part is debatable, but at least that was its intent--sort of, until Luther got carried away.

I would argue that Protestant-ism isn't so much the child of the two, as it is the post-boot-camp version of Catholicism.

This is great too.   I guess Os look at it as a boot camp that went a bit too far.  Catholics beat Protestants when it comes to piety, IMHO.

1)   The role of reason and rationality.  To the west, we feel everything must be examined by reason.  In fact, God is above reason and, if you haven’t noticed, has much mystery about Him.  It has something to do with using Greek philosophy to explain Christian concepts.  There is nothing wrong with this, but the west got carried away starting with Thomas Acquinas, I think.  Roman Catholics do recognize mystery, but the Protestant fathers went whole hog with the rationality idea.

You have a point, but you take it too far.  Christianity is very much about the mind.  Didn't God call Himself LOGOS?  Is God not "all mind?"  What about "repent" ? - isn't that mental?  Believe - mental again.  Isn't "spirit" part and parcel that comes with mind?

I think I said this before in a different context, but Jesus is about the incarnation.  That is not body vs. spirit, but the joining together of the two.  It is the ultimate beauty.  In the beginning, the physical was not opposed to the spiritual.  After God created everything, He said it was good.   

When we don't understand something, it's usually because we're trying to put a puzzle together, and we don't have all the pieces.

We can shrug and call it a mystery, or we can go look under the bed for the rest of the pieces.  The 2nd option is the greater.

Now here you are thinking like a westerner.  The Bible says (can't think of where right now) that the wisdom of man is less than the folly of God.  God cannot be comprehended.  As a Protestant, I felt if I didn't understand it was my fault.  Reason is a good thing, but only goes so far.  The east has an innate understanding of the boundedness of reason  while, as a westerner (this includes Catholics as well), it really bothers me not to know.   



 

Some things just shouldn't be taken as literal.  Making up explanations is a problem.  Not bothering to understand is an equal and opposite problem, I think.

True, and take it from me, the Orthodox do a lot of thinking.  From John Chrystostom to Alexander Schmemann, we got the right stuff when it comes to Theology.  The west the mistake made, IMHO, was to rely too much on Augustine for theology.  Now, that was lazy.  The Western fathers didn't read Greek, so the West relied on his writings.   Yes, that is simplifying things, but there is no doubt that both Protestants and Catholic rely a lot on Augustine for theology.  We think his theology was kind of lame, but his piety was good.
 

I doubt we even have enough common ground here to talk sensically to each other.  "The faith" IS revelatory, being focused on someONE, rather than being someTHING that is written/understood.

Yeah, but I see common ground.  We do feel (unlike say many Baptists) that God is always revealing things.  The Spirit can move however he wants.  But the truth of Christianity cannot change over time.  If it did, it would no longer be an eternal faith.  (A big problem with Vatican II, by the way).

Take the Nicene creed, for example; it didn't change Christianity from the early days, it just clarified things because a heresy (Arianism) was catching on (big time)

4)   Christian life is primarily an individual experience.  Our evangelical friends talk about the primary importance of a “personal relationship with Christ,” even though those words never appear together in Scripture.  To Orthodox ears, the phrase is bristling.  Why?  The Bible shows that people are usually saved in groups.  Individualism has its role but the worship experience is usually a group one.  Remember “no interpretation of Scripture is private?”  With some notable exceptions (thief on the Cross), salvation occurs in a group context in Scripture.

Really an interesting paragraph.  Thanks for the something to ponder.

Thank you.  To be honest, I don't think I will ever truly get a real handle on this.  Individualism is just too engrained in our culture to think otherwise.

There's nothing AGAINST the group experience...just the paradigm doesn't lend itself to it.  Protestants are moving back that direction, though, with "cell groups" and "bible studies" and "outings" and "outreaches" that are all designed primarily to bring people together.

This is an interesting trend which I had been a part of in my Protestant life.   Another interesting trend is toward more wholistic worship.  Another feature of Orthodox worship.  When I became a Protestant (after growing up Catholic), I had to resist the urge to cross myself.  Now that I am almost Orthodox, I love this form of worship.  It uses the body to remind us of the holiest of things--the Trinity.  The Protestants dumped it probably because it wasn't intellectual enough (during the Aquainis-on-steriods period).  It's a shame that happened because the Trinity seems more real to me when I cross.  (By the way, the sigh of the  cross is an ancient Christian tradition.)

No doubt.  Although, my own theology isn't wholly Protestant (or Catholic), which makes the point easy to see.

That's good!  Now, invite some of the eastern thinkers in your theology and your world will rock (Mine did.)

You always have something interesting to say.  And I usually have something to disagree with.  

Thanks.  You are kind.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

...that has been purged of those things that simply didn't cut the mustard logically.

This part is debatable, but at least that was its intent--sort of, until Luther got carried away.[/quote]
Interesting.  There are many who would say he didn't go far enough...

When we don't understand something, it's usually because we're trying to put a puzzle together, and we don't have all the pieces.

We can shrug and call it a mystery, or we can go look under the bed for the rest of the pieces.  The 2nd option is the greater.

Now here you are thinking like a Westerner.  The Bible says (can't think of where right now) that the wisdom of man is less than the folly of God.

I am a Westerner.  =)  Fortunately, God lowers Himself to meet us at our level. =-D

God cannot be comprehended.

That's what the first half of John 1:18 means.  I'm partial to the 2nd half though:
Jhn 1:18b ...the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [Him].

Also, knowledge of God is a different thing from understanding of God.  And knowledge of God is something we are all exhorted to.  I really don't think we're meant to grope around in the dark.  God is light.

Maybe we're not to rest on our understanding, but on what we have experienced of God.  Or is that too gnostic a thought? ;-)

As a Protestant, I felt if I didn't understand it was my fault.  Reason is a good thing, but only goes so far.  The east has an innate understanding of the boundedness of reason while, as a westerner (this includes Catholics as well), it really bothers me not to know.

I'm sorry you felt that way.  Chances are, it was part your fault for not doing the study yourself, but more the fault of your elders and should-be mentors.  Few Protestant groups do a good job of teaching doctrine, other than denominational pet-doctrines ***coughCOCBaptismthreadscough*** and the Protestant church misses Catechism classes, whether it realizes it or not.

The west the mistake made, IMHO, was to rely too much on Augustine for theology.  Now, that was lazy.  The Western fathers didn't read Greek, so the West relied on his writings.   Yes, that is simplifying things, but there is no doubt that both Protestants and Catholic rely a lot on Augustine for theology.  We think his theology was kind of lame, but his piety was good.

Preachin to the choir, my friend.
 

I doubt we even have enough common ground here to talk sensically to each other.  "The faith" IS revelatory, being focused on someONE, rather than being someTHING that is written/understood.

Yeah, but I see common ground.  We do feel (unlike say many Baptists) that God is always revealing things.  The Spirit can move however he wants.  But the truth of Christianity cannot change over time.  If it did, it would no longer be an eternal faith.  (A big problem with Vatican II, by the way).

I guess we do have some common ground.  I have a hard time explaining this to people - how God can be revealing ________, but that revelation isn't formative of new doctrine, but an application, or clarification of WHAT-HAS-ALWAYS-BEEN.

...the Nicene creed, for example; it didn't change Christianity from the early days, it just clarified things because a heresy (Arianism) was catching on (big time)

That's a pleasant fantasy.
this.  Individualism is just too engrained in our culture to think otherwise.

No doubt.  Although, my own theology isn't wholly Protestant (or Catholic), which makes the point easy to see.

That's good!  Now, invite some of the eastern thinkers in your theology and your world will rock (Mine did.)

I don't generally read church fathers that come after Nicea.  Which places virtually all of them in the East (or Egypt).

Jarrod