Icthus.... Please show me...

[ironmonk]

[b]Please show me:[/b] (in regards to the Early Church Fathers)[list]
[*]The Early Church Fathers that were never loyal to the Pope
[*]That did not believe in the Sacraments that can only be found in the Catholic Church
[*]That did not believe in Apostolic Succession
[*]That did not believe that Peter was the first leader of the Church
[*]That did not believe Mary was Ever Virgin
[*]That believe that other denominations are ok and holy
[/list]
God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 27, 2004 by ironmonk

[thessalonian]

He will find one for a couple of your cases (cyprian and tertullian come to mind), overblow what the first said, and call that good to justify his disbelief.

[popestpiusx]

Cyprian on what issue?

[Apotheoun]

Catholics are only bound to accept the [i]consensus patrum[/i].

[popestpiusx]

Tertillian was a heretic. How about Origin? Not many prots want to claim him. For good reason I guess. Who wants to make his mistake again?

[dairygirl4u2c]

You all should read about John Henry Newman's opponents to his conversion.
[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=25214&st=0entry456940"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...=0entry456940[/url]


I'm sure you have, andor are in denial andor just wanting more evidence against it. But anyway.. I'm just here to give some advice and leave.

Tertuillian has been called a "writer of impeccable orthodoxy to enunciate the unpalatable truth, that the church was not a conclave of bishops, but the people of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian was from Carthage 160 - 225, the same place only ealier than St. Cyprian. [b][i]St. Cyprian never went a day without reading him, and called him 'the master' according to St. Jerome.[/i][/b] "

Whenever the errors, such as paganism, against which he wrote resurface, his writings will again be readable; who wrote 'first and best and incomparably' against them.

Edited December 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Apotheoun]

The things that Tertullian wrote while he was a Catholic are completely orthodox – although it is true that even while a Catholic he tended toward a form of rigorism – but his writings after he became a Montanist heretic are a mixture of truth and error. The Catholic Church has never considered Tertullian to be a "Father" of the Church; rather, he has always been called an ecclesiastical author, but more importantly, it is only his orthodox views that are to be respected.

God bless,
Todd

[thessalonian]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 27 2004, 02:29 PM'] Cyprian on what issue? [/quote]
His alleged denial of the primacy of Rome. Steve Ray does a marvelous job of refuting this in Upon This Rock.

Tertullian a heretic? Only late in his life. His earlier writings are of great value.

Dairy, fancy meeting you on this thread. I was actually thinking more of you than of Icthus when I posted. Do you agree with Montanism?

[Guest Aluigi]

if John Henry Newman could refute them and still decided to convert, what makes you think his opponents are going to convince us?? they didn't convince Newman! jeeze... i don't understand why you think that's so solid. we're in denial about the opposition to Newman's conversion?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 27 2004, 12:51 PM'] if John Henry Newman could refute them and still decided to convert, what makes you think his opponents are going to convince us?? they didn't convince Newman! jeeze... i don't understand why you think that's so solid. we're in denial about the opposition to Newman's conversion? [/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

I wonder what degree Tertull believed in Monatanism. The Catholic Church says that new private revalatios are possible. To be consistent, the Catholic Church must have said he was wrong because he believed new revalations for salvation were possible? I'll have to study that more.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do agree with it to a degree. The spirit gives us new revelations all the time, even to this day. Near death experiences and visions etc. I agree with the Catholic Church that no new requirements for salvation are given. Of course I think that anyone regardless of denomination can be saved. but anyway. It doesn't matter what I think philosophically As I am a church of myself.. ... and it doesn't it doesn't matter what Icthus thinks philosophically either. I kinda wonder if you guys pick on him because he knows only a bit about about the early church; significance being just about reformation, Anglicanism, and theological speculations. Don't pick on the ignorant to boast your positions. And focus on the facts.

I think the important thing to remember is that Cyprian read Tertuillian daily. And that tertuillian believed what I said in my last post. Of course what he read and used etc needs to be considered. I think I've given enough for now.

Edited December 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 27 2004, 12:55 PM'] I think the important thing to remember is that Cyprian read Tertuillian daily. And that tertuillian believed what I said in my last post. [/quote]
Cyprian's devotional practice is just that, his own devotional practice, and as such it isn't binding on anyone.

As I said earlier in this thread: Catholics are bound to accept the [i]consensus patrum[/i], but they are not required to agree with every comment made by a particular Father or ecclesiastical author.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 27 2004, 11:52 AM'] [b]Please show me:[/b] (in regards to the Early Church Fathers)[list]

[*]The Early Church Fathers that were never loyal to the Pope

[*]That did not believe in the Sacraments that can only be found in the Catholic Church

[*]That did not believe in Apostolic Succession

[*]That did not believe that Peter was the first leader of the Church

[*]That did not believe Mary was Ever Virgin

[*]That believe that other denominations are ok and holy

[/list]God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Icthus please show me the above.


If the above cannot be shown, how can anyone outside the Catholic Church be in the One Church/One Faith built by Christ?


You have basically claimed that you are of the one true faith... then show me how by showing the above.



Everyone else, please go to your own thread.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 27, 2004 by ironmonk

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 27 2004, 12:55 PM']I wonder what degree Tertullian believed in Monatanism.[/quote]
He believed in it enough to become a Montanist.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 27 2004, 12:55 PM']The Catholic Church says that new private revalatios are possible. To be consistent, the Catholic Church must have said he was wrong because he believed new revelations for salvation were possible? I'll have to study that more. [/quote]
The Montanists didn't see their "new" revelations as private; instead, they held that Montanus was the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit and that his revelations were binding on everyone.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 27 2004, 03:05 PM']


You have basically claimed that you are of the one true faith... then show me how by showing the above.
[/quote]
No, I have not. I have claimed that I am a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, [b]not[/b] that that Church subsists within the Anglican Communion, as you arrogantly caim that the Church subsists within the Roman communion.

What I dont get is that you don't hassle the Orientals nearly as much as we Anglicans, yet we make a similar claim to them - that our communion is[i] a part [/i]of the universal church.

[james]

"The Rev. David Moyer, whose crusade against liberalizing trends in the Episcopal Church USA has made him an international figure, announced yesterday that he will become a bishop in a breakaway Anglican denomination...

"Moyer and his parish have refused to accept his defrocking. Yesterday, wearing a traditional black cassock at the coffee hour following high Mass, Moyer, 53, said he hoped his new position would help bring traditionalist Episcopalians and Anglicans 'into union with the one, true church.'

"'God is striving to do a whole new thing to unite his people,' he said. Later he exclaimed in Latin: 'Ut unum sint,' or 'that all may be one,' a reference to Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical of that name, in which the pope invited non-Roman Catholic Christians into greater affiliation with the papacy.

"Although Moyer declined to discuss what he meant by 'one, true church,' the Anglican Church in America's presiding bishop said last week that the denomination, which opposes women's ordination, seeks communion with the Roman Catholic Church."

[url="http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10456533.htm?1c"]Full article[/url]

Edited December 27, 2004 by james

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 27 2004, 06:02 PM'] No, I have not. I have claimed that I am a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, [b]not[/b] that that Church subsists within the Anglican Communion, as you arrogantly caim that the Church subsists within the Roman communion.

What I dont get is that you don't hassle the Orientals nearly as much as we Anglicans, yet we make a similar claim to them - that our communion is[i] a part [/i]of the universal church. [/quote]
You deny the beliefs that the Early Church believed.

These are all things the Early Church believed... if you deny them, how can you be part of the Church?

There is a difference between schismatic and heretic.

I don't claim the Church is the One True Church... the first Christians claim it, therefore I believe it because they walked with Christ.

Hassle? LOL

This is a defence of the faith which you have been attacking without any consideration of rebuttals with facts given to you for more than a year.

Your communion is not part of the Catholic Church. The very Angelican Bishops you claim is your church have pointed this out in the past and I have posted references to it.

The Angelican Church has taken away from the Word of God and put in the word of men.


You want to throw a bunch of questions but run when a few hard ones that you have no answer for are given?

Does it not make a light go off in your head when there are so many questions that you cannot find answers too, yet EVERY question against the Church you attack with has an answer which is logical and proven when looked at in the light explained?

hmmmmm....


Show me what I ask of and then I'll be able to understand how you can logically and with good conscience be outside of the Catholic Church, lead by the Successor of Peter.

Please don't try and change the subject. You claim you are Catholic, then prove it. If your beliefs contradict all of the Early Church Fathers, then you are not Catholic.

Everyone who leaves the group is wrong to do so - Acts 20:29-30. Angelicans left the group. The Oriental Church hasn't changed any major tenant... they are Schismatic... they are still wrong, but they are more right than the Angelicans.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 27 2004, 07:26 PM']Your communion is not part of the Catholic Church. The very Angelican Bishops you claim is your church have pointed this out in the past and I have posted references to it.

The Angelican Church has taken away from the Word of God and put in the word of men.

[/quote]
[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=22118&view=findpost&p=397086"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=397086[/url]

[quote name='Radio Replies. Vol. 1. #286']
How can you deny the Orders of the anglican bishops? They go back to the Bishops of the Reformation period.

There have been anglican bishops continuously since the reformation, but valid Orders have not been continuously handed on. Henry VIII began the Church of England in 1534. The Bishops who submitted to him were validly consecrated, and validity lasted until 1550. But in that year, under Edward VI, a great effort was made to protestantize still more the Church of England both in doctrine and in practice. The form of Ordination was deliberately changed, all reference to priesthood in the true Christian sense of the word being eliminated. This defective form utterly useless for the true ordination of priests, remained unchanged until 1662- 112 years later. then the mistake was realized and the form was corrected. But the correction was too late, for those whith correct Orders had died, and oly those who had been invalidly consecrated remained to hand on their pretended Orders. Not a few Anglicans have tried to make sure of Orders by re-ordination at the hands of schismatical Bishops. [u][b]The Angelican Bishop Knox, writing in the National Review for September, 1925, said correctly, "The Pope refused absolutely to recognize our Anglican Orders on the ground that our Church does not ordain priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. In spite of attempts made by our Archbishop to conceal this defect, the Pope from his point of view was unquestionably right. It is true that certain priests of the Church of England offer so-called Masses, but as they were not ordained by the Church with the intention that they should offer the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, the Sacrament of their Ordination is for this purpose a failure. The Prayer Book and Ordinal are simply un-Catholic, since they show no sign of fulfilling the most important of all Catholic functions.[/b][/u]
[/quote]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='james' date='Dec 27 2004, 04:28 PM'] "The Rev. David Moyer, whose crusade against liberalizing trends in the Episcopal Church USA has made him an international figure, announced yesterday that he will become a bishop in a breakaway Anglican denomination...

"Moyer and his parish have refused to accept his defrocking. Yesterday, wearing a traditional black cassock at the coffee hour following high Mass, Moyer, 53, said he hoped his new position would help bring traditionalist Episcopalians and Anglicans 'into union with the one, true church.'

"'God is striving to do a whole new thing to unite his people,' he said. Later he exclaimed in Latin: 'Ut unum sint,' or 'that all may be one,' a reference to Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical of that name, in which the pope invited non-Roman Catholic Christians into greater affiliation with the papacy.

"Although Moyer declined to discuss what he meant by 'one, true church,' the Anglican Church in America's presiding bishop said last week that the denomination, which opposes women's ordination, seeks communion with the Roman Catholic Church."

[url="http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10456533.htm?1c"]Full article[/url] [/quote]
That is one priest. Who cares about him? Sure, if he wants to go crying home to a church that has abandoned the Holy Gospel and become a synagogue of Satan, let him.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 27 2004, 05:26 PM']



Hassl

The Angelican Church has taken away from the Word of God and put in the word of men.


You want to throw a bunch of questions but run when a few hard ones that you have no answer for are given?

Does it not make a light go off in your head when there are so many questions that you cannot find answers too, yet EVERY question against the Church you attack with has an answer which is logical and proven when looked at in the light explained?

hmmmmm....


Show me what I ask of and then I'll be able to understand how you can logically and with good conscience be outside of the Catholic Church, lead by the Successor of Peter.

Please don't try and change the subject. You claim you are Catholic, then prove it. If your beliefs contradict all of the Early Church Fathers, then you are not Catholic.

Everyone who leaves the group is wrong to do so - Acts 20:29-30. Angelicans left the group. The Oriental Church hasn't changed any major tenant... they are Schismatic... they are still wrong, but they are more right than the Angelicans.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
I do not deny the things that the Early Church believed. The Early Church did not believe in purgatory, praying to the dead, etc. These things are nowhere mentioned in Scripture, therefore, the Early Church did not believe in them. The post-Apostolic church may have believed in them, but the Early Church did not.

[quote]I don't claim the Church is the One True Church... the first Christians claim it, therefore I believe it because they walked with Christ.[/quote] Of course "The Church" is the One True Church. But "The Church" is not the Roman Catholic Church.

[quote]This is a defence of the faith which you have been attacking without any consideration of rebuttals with facts given to you for more than a year.[/quote] Actually, I have attempted to defend that church up until about three months ago. If you had been posting with any consistency on CGR, you would've known that. If you want me to dig up some of my old debates with Musty and others to prove it, just ask (in fact, why don't you ask Goldenchild17, who has been on CGR for quite some time and knows for a fact that I have rigorously defended the Church of Rome there)

[quote]Your communion is not part of the Catholic Church. The very Angelican Bishops you claim is your church have pointed this out in the past and I have posted references to it. [/quote] First of all, I have asked you before, and I will not ask you again. SPELL "ANGLICAN" correctly! ARE you learning disabled or something?

Second, the only reference I found to that was on a Roman Catholic website. Show it to me on a secular or Anglican website, and show it to me in context, and I will reply to it.

Third, you never replied to Saepius Officio, and there has never been an official Roman Catholic reply to it either. You merely spouted some garbage about it being anti-Roman, and then proceeded to cite it out of context - when all it was saying was that by the criterion that Rome uses to declare Anglican orders invalid, she declares her own invalid as well.

Pax,
Ryan