Anti-non-catholics (catholics) Fear This

[dairygirl4u2c]

Interpretation arguments go round and round. When a Non-Catholic says something about the bible, the anti-non-Catholic (Catholic) will say "no, you're wrong, that's not what it means"... and the Catholic has no basis for his personal interpretation. (it would have to smell of elderberries to be Catholic, always wondering about bible meanings... and if they think it doesn't smell of elderberries, then I guess ignorance is bliss)

The most ANYONE (Catholics and anti-non-catholics) can say truthfully is that "we have a different interpretation from the Non-Catholics". Then when they get into historical facts, they can't say a thing against other Churches. It's a fact that the Non-Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years.



What all Catholicss fear....

1. Prove the the Non-Catholic Church teaching is wrong with the Bible, by posting links to the parts of this believer's website and quoting verses in the bible...here is the link to a church:

[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm[/url]

2. For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 600 AD to show that this man's Church was not the Church that Christ built.

The whole basis of anti-non-Catholicism is all lies. Quotes taken out of context, and some totally fabricated.

[crusader1234]

I don't really think this is worth refuting sorry... its been hashed to death. Go find an older thread please.

[p0lar_bear]

That a rather unfair question. Not all non-Catholics believe the same thing. Some non-Catholic churches have official statements, others don't. You would have to specify which church and what beliefs.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 9 2004, 01:21 PM'] That a rather unfair question. Not all non-Catholics believe the same thing. Some non-Catholic churches have official statements, others don't. You would have to specify which church and what beliefs. [/quote]
Agreed. You need to be more specific in your generalization of "non-catholics".

[jmjtina]

Been there. Done that.

hmmm, I remember the link and it got taken down. AND i think we already refuted this thread. Perhaps you should go and look for it because it might be there.

Nice to see you again Dairygirl.

God Bless.

Edited July 9, 2004 by jmjtina

[dairygirl4u2c]

Only because this is a reflex response, and many Catholics will be thinking it, will I respond.

As I said, here is a church I want you to refute:
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm[/url]

I want you to refute non-catholic christians such as this who do not insist all their beliefs are necessarily totally infallible. If you can refute this man, you can refute all of them.

Edited July 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jmjtina]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 9 2004, 01:35 PM'] I want you to refute non-catholic christians such as this who do not insist all their beliefs are necessarily totally infallible. [/quote]
We did last time to that very site.

but hey, as long as you read them.

God Bless.

Edited July 9, 2004 by jmjtina

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 9 2004, 03:16 PM'] Interpretation arguments go round and round. When a Non-Catholic says something about the bible, the anti-non-Catholic (Catholic) will say "no, you're wrong, that's not what it means"... and the Catholic has no basis for his personal interpretation. (it would have to smell of elderberries to be Catholic, always wondering about bible meanings... and if they think it doesn't smell of elderberries, then I guess ignorance is bliss)

The most ANYONE (Catholics and anti-non-catholics) can say truthfully is that "we have a different interpretation from the Non-Catholics". Then when they get into historical facts, they can't say a thing against other Churches. It's a fact that the Non-Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years.



What all Catholicss fear....

1. Prove the the Non-Catholic Church teaching is wrong with the Bible, by posting links to the parts of this believer's website and quoting verses in the bible...here is the link to a church:

[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm[/url]

2. For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 600 AD to show that this man's Church was not the Church that Christ built.

The whole basis of anti-non-Catholicism is all lies. Quotes taken out of context, and some totally fabricated. [/quote]
Said the person who hasn't studied and fears the challenge.

You are on a Catholic board.
The Catholic Church was the first Christian Church.
The Catholic Church gave you the bible.


Sorry, but you are not a master of circling the arguement.


EDIT: I'm sorry I thought this was the other thread.



For Christ's sake and your ver soul, please study... start in 33 AD.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 9, 2004 by ironmonk

[crusader1234]

I'd actually reccomend starting with Adam and Eve. The foundation is a vital part of the structure.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 9 2004, 03:35 PM'] Only because this is a reflex response, and many Catholics will be thinking it, will I respond.

As I said, here is a church I want you to refute:
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm[/url]

I want you to refute non-catholic christians such as this who do not insist all their beliefs are necessarily totally infallible. If you can refute this man, you can refute all of them. [/quote]
We are not interested in attacking others.

We are interested in defending the Church that Christ left us.

protestantism got it's name from "protesting" the Catholic Church. All protestant churches are offshots of the Catholic Church. They must prove the Catholic Church wrong in order to give some validity to their personal beliefs.

It's up for the offshots to prove the original wrong. The original has been built on Cephas (Rock - Peter).


Use a little logic.

If A is True
If B is True
Then A + B is True.


If Christ is God is True
If God cannot be wrong is True
Then everything that Christ said is True

If Christ said the Church would never be overcome is True
If the Catholic Church was the First Church and the only Church that was around in 33 AD.
Then the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ



God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jul 9 2004, 04:03 PM'] I'd actually reccomend starting with Adam and Eve. The foundation is a vital part of the structure. [/quote]
Good point... I agree... start with Adam & Eve... don't expect to find out overnight... invest the time in knowing the truth. Start with Adam & Eve, be sure to study from a Jewish source also of what the Jews believed before Christ...

Christianity (Catholicism) is the second part of the faith... The Jewish was the first.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 9 2004, 01:16 PM']What all Catholicss fear....

1. Prove the the Non-Catholic Church teaching is wrong with the Bible, by posting links to the parts of this believer's website and quoting verses in the bible...here is the link to a church:

[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm[/url][/quote]
well then, to prove this "church" is wrong, i would only have to refute one of the 173 articles on this page. correct? if i refute one of his beliefs, then his "teaching" would be in error.

shooooooot, i'll bite.

i'll go with.......................(phatcatholic closes his eyes and runs his mouse up and down the page...........................this one! hey, my pointer landed on this one:

--[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a11.htm"]Bread of Life: Eating Jesus' Flesh[/url]

i'll quote his words, and then provide my comments.

[quote]It is certainly not by eating Jesus’ body with the mouth and teeth as the Jews wrongly understood. Both Catholics and Protestants reject the revolting idea of cannibalism.[/quote]here is the author's first misunderstanding of the Real Presence. consuming the Eucharist is not cannablism. first off, when one partakes in cannabalism

--his actions effect what he is truly eating
--his senses confirm what is substantially present.

he is eating what is substantially flesh. his actions of tearing and biting effect this flesh. he senses confirm to him that he is eating flesh, for what enters his mouth smells, tastes, feels, and looks like flesh.

however, when Catholics consume the Eucharist, none of these conditions are present. although what is substantially present is the Body of Christ, the actions of breaking and eating effect the "accidents," which are bread. likewise, the senses do not confirm what is substantially present. our five senses tell us that what we are consuming is bread--NOT the flesh of Jesus. our "eyes of faith" reveal what is truly present--the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

secondly, none of the connotations of cannabalism are present. consuming the Eucharist is not bloody. it is not animalistic. it is not idol worship. it is instead reverent obedience to the words of our Lord and Savior.

[quote]Moreover, the Scriptures forbid drinking of blood (Leviticus 17:14; Deuteronomy 12:16,23; Acts 21:25), and certainly the Lord would not oppose the precepts of the Law.[/quote]in the OT, drinking blood was forbidden b/c it was the life force of the animal, it was the most important part of the animal. this therefore was to be reserved not to man but to be sacrificed to God, who is the force behind all life. to drink blood was to be selfish and point one's mind inward, instead of being selfless and pointing one's mind to God. likewise, to drink blood was to be separated from covenant relationship w/ God.

as the New Testament "Lamb of God" Jesus fulfills the sacrifice of the OT. now, consuming blood--His Blood--is a turning towards God. now, consuming blood--His Blood--brings one into a more perfect relationship w/ God. now, the blood of an animal holds no significance, for life is in the Blood of God.

in response, one may say, "well, what of Acts 21:25, where we have a NT prohibition against drinking blood?" in response to this, i quote from [url="http://cuf.org/nonmemb/blood.pdf"][b]this article[/b][/url]:[list]
[*]Animal blood was prudently prohibited at that time in the Church out of deference to the converts from Israel who found it offensive. Keep in mind, Jews who called themselves Christians still associated with those Jews who were not Christian. Paul says in [b]Romans 14:13-15[/b] that no food is unclean, but that Christians must not scandalize each other with what they eat. To avoid scandal, certain foods were temporarily forbidden. Furthermore, food that contained blood was associated with pagan rituals. To avoid an association of Christianity with pagan rituals, the temporary discipline was maintained. In short, the purpose of the discipline was not theological--as in the Old Testament--but social. When the danger of scandal to Christianity ceased, this temporary discipline was abolished.
[/list]
this is the only logical conclusion considering that, in [b]Mark 7:18-23[/b] (see also [b]Mt. 15:17-20[/b]) Jesus declares all foods to be clean, which he reaffirms to Peter through a vision in [b]Acts 10[/b].

the rest of the authors points center around this argument:[quote]There is no reason why we should interpret eating and drinking in a different way from Jesus’ earlier explanation. We must participate in the merits of His bodily sacrifice and the blood shed on the cross by believing in Him. That is the only way we can feed and be satisfied with life eternal.[/quote]essentially, the author claims that Jesus is contending not for the Jews to eat his flesh, but for them to believe in Him. but, the author is fighting for a false "either-or" proposition. i say that Jesus is requiring BOTH things of the Jews here. they must believe in Him AND eat his flesh.

all of Jesus' miracles were plainly visible for the specific purpose that they appealed to the Jews, who required visible miracles and signs in order to believe. as recently as hours before the discourse in John 6, Jesus had fed thousands w/ the loaves and fishes. however, this time, He required a greater, more elevated faith from them. now they must show their faith in Him by consuming his actual body and blood. in their reaction we see the extent of their faith. they ran away, abhorred by what Jesus would have them do. but He never backed down. instead he repeated his requirement, becoming more forceful in wording and terminology w/ every repitition.

I can picture Peter in my mind, obviously confused by what Jesus was telling them. afterall, Peter was rather dim-witted at times. but, despite his confusion, he persisted in his faith in Jesus Christ (as an aside, note that Peter is speaking not just for himself but for the remaining twelve.........ahh, the primacy of Peter):

[b]John 6:67-69[/b]
[b]67 [/b]Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
[b]68 [/b]Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[b]69[/b] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

thus, the twelve exemplify the type of faith that Jesus required of them--faith that believes even when it does not understand. no wonder then that it is these twelve, and only these twelve, who would celebrate the Passover w/ Jesus. here Jesus would institute what he had so forcefully proposed--that his flesh is real food, his blood is real drink, and whoever consumes this flesh and blood with that [i]greater [/i]act of faith will receive eternal life.

for more on this, go [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=6565"][b]here[/b][/url]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

ps: in my second post i will take up the second part of your challenge.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 9 2004, 01:16 PM'] 2. For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 600 AD to show that this man's Church was not the Church that Christ built. [/quote]
i'm assuming that, since i am refuting this "church" regarding their belief in the Real Presence, that i should show how it is not the Church that Christ built as it pertains to the Eucharist. this is easily shown.

if this "church" was the Church that Christ built, then we should find overwhelming testimony which reveals that early christians believed in a [i]symblolic [/i]communion, not a literal one. however, this is not what we find. instead, we find overwhelming testimony in a [i]literal[/i] Real Presence in the Eucharist. this is made evident by the following, all of which exists before 600 AD (such an arbitrary date, i might add).

[b]Ignatius of Antioch[/b]
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [[b]A.D. 110[/b]]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [[b]A.D. 110[/b]]).


[b]Justin Martyr[/b]
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [[b]A.D. 151[/b]]).


[b]Irenaeus[/b]
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [[b]A.D. 189[/b]]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).


[b]Clement of Alexandria[/b]
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [[b]A.D. 191[/b]]).


[b]Tertullian[/b]
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [[b]A.D. 210[/b]]).


[b]Hippolytus[/b]
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [[b]A.D. 217[/b]]).


[b]Origen[/b]
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [[b]A.D. 248[/b]]).


[b]Cyprian of Carthage[/b]
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [[b]A.D. 251[/b]]).


[b]Council of Nicaea I[/b]
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [[b]A.D. 325[/b]]).


[b]Aphraahat the Persian Sage[/b]
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [[b]A.D. 340[/b]]).


[b]Cyril of Jerusalem[/b]
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [[b]A.D. 350[/b]]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).


[b]Ambrose of Milan[/b]
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [[b]A.D. 390[/b]]).


[b]Theodore of Mopsuestia[/b]
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [[b]A.D. 405[/b]]).


[b]Augustine[/b]
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [[b]A.D. 405[/b]]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [[b]A.D. 411[/b]]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).


[b]Council of Ephesus[/b]
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [[b]A.D. 431[/b]]).


[b]Theodoret of Cyrus[/b]
"Eran.--You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord's body into another nature. Answer now to my questions.
Orth.--I will answer.
Eran.--What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
Orth.--It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.
Eran.--Let your answer be put enigmatically.
Orth.--Food of grain of such a sort.
Eran.--And how name we the other symbol?
Orth.--This name too is common, signifying species of drink.
Eran.--And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.--Christ's body and Christ's blood.
Eran.--And do yon believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood?
Orth.--I do." (Eranistes, 2, in NPNF1, III:200 [[b]A.D. 451[/b]])


[b]Pope Leo the Great[/b]
"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, "unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,' you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken." (Sermon, 91:3, NPNF2,XII:202 [[b]ante A.D. 461[/b]])


this should suffice as proof that the church in question is not the true Church as it regards the Real Presence in the Eucharist. the true Church of Christ is correct in every doctrine. [b]since this church has been proven false in one regard, it is thus not the church of Christ.[/b]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]2. For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 600 AD to show that this man's Church was not the Church that Christ built.[/quote]Read "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus of Lyons, and discover the True Church. It was written circa 190 AD, by a man who studied under Polycarp, who in turn studied under John the Apostle. Here is my favorite of his writings:
[quote]"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
(Adversus haereses 3:3:2 [A.D. 189])[/quote]
There are hundreds of quotes to support Catholicism before 600 AD, let's go subject by subject, you pick.

[b][u]Further reading of Peter and the Papacy in Patrology:[/u][/b]
Tertullian, Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]
Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]
Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 43[40]:5 & 66[69]:8 [A.D. 253]
Firmilian, Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 & 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]
Peter of Alexandria, Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 2:19 & 6:14 & 17:27 [A.D. 350]
Ephraim the Syrian, Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]
Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]
Ambrose of Milan, The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379] & Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]
Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393] & Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]
Augustine, Psalmus contr Partem Donati[A.D. 393] & Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412] & Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415] & Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew [A.D. 428]

[Winchester]

Also, I believe Daredevil was a Catholic, and he was the man without fear, so your premise is flawed.