Non-Catholics, Thank the Catholic Church.

[mulls]

also note the use of the word "if" in my statement.

thanks!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='mulls' date='Dec 21 2004, 01:29 PM'] if i thank the catholic church for all the blessings of christmas, then i'm also going to blame it for what it has allowed the world to make it....a secular heap of garbage. [/quote]
I'm going to have to concur with Dave, Mulls. The it's not the Church's fault if the meaning of the day she sets aside for celebration of the birth of Christ is ignored and misrepresented by a people who are, to wit, unregenerate and wholly depraved in their thinking, and at enmity with God.

I thank the ancient Church for setting aside this day as one who celebrates that ancient Church's faith for all the good it has brought us. I do not see how the Church of Rome must be thanked, however.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 23 2004, 10:24 PM'] I thank the ancient Church for setting aside this day as one who celebrates that ancient Church's faith for all the good it has brought us. I do not see how the Church of Rome must be thanked, however. [/quote]
If you opened your eyes and heart, you would see how....

There is only One Church built by Christ, the Catholic Church.

Show me two of the Early Church Fathers from each century that is not Catholic and holds your faith....


They all acknowledged the Pope as successor of Peter. End of Story.


God Bless, Merry Christ Mass,
ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 23 2004, 09:42 PM'] If you opened your eyes and heart, you would see how....

There is only One Church built by Christ, the Catholic Church.

Show me two of the Early Church Fathers from each century that is not Catholic and holds your faith....


They all acknowledged the Pope as successor of Peter. End of Story.


God Bless, Merry Christ Mass,
ironmonk [/quote]
Logical fallacy: you beg the question by assuming that the church Catholic subsists in the Roman Catholic Church.

[Archangel]

Jesus said it Himself in Matthew 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and [b]upon this rock I will build my church[/b], and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. The line of popes can be traced back directly to St. Peter.

Anyways, can you please answer ironmonk's request about showing two Early Church Fathers from each century that is not Catholic and holds your faith. Thanks.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Dec 24 2004, 06:59 PM'] Jesus said it Himself in Matthew 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and [b]upon this rock I will build my church[/b], and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. The line of popes can be traced back directly to St. Peter.

Anyways, can you please answer ironmonk's request about showing two Early Church Fathers from each century that is not Catholic and holds your faith. Thanks. [/quote]And I repeat - you beg the question by assuming that the church Catholic subsists in those ecclesiastical groups who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Edited December 25, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

Come to think of it, I can do you one better. I can think of a bunch of the Fathers that teach at least the basics of the Faith that I hold as a member of the Anglican Communion I can guarantee that they were not Roman Catholics, either, because the Roman Catholic Church did not exist yet (ca. 325 A.D.)


Be deaf, therefore, when any would speak to you apart from (at variance with) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from the family of David, born of Mary, who was truly born both of God and of the Virgin … truly took a body; for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us without sin, ate and drank truly, truly suffered persecution under Pontius Pilate, was truly, and not in appearance, crucified and died, who was truly raised from the dead, and rose after three days, his Father raising him up, and after having spent forty days with the Apostles, was received up to the Father, and sits on his right hand, waiting till his enemies are put under his feet."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107

The Church, though scattered through the whole world to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith in ONE GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, who made the heavens and the earth, and the seas, and all that in them is; and in ONE JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the HOLY GHOST, who through the prophets preached the dispensations and the Advent, and his birth of the Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily assumption into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father, to comprehend all things under one head, and to raise up all flesh of all mankind, that, according to the pleasure of the Father invisible, every knee of those that are in heaven and on the earth and under the earth should bow before Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Saviour and King, and that every tongue should confess to him, and that he may execute righteous judgment over all: sending into eternal fire the spiritual powers of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and apostatized, and the godless and unrighteous and lawless and blasphemous among men, and granting life and immortality and eternal glory to the righteous and holy, who have both kept the commandments and continued in his love, some from the beginning, some after their conversion."

St Irenaeus of Lyons, A.D. 180

The Rule of Faith is altogether one, sole, immovable, and irreformable -- namely, to believe in ONE GOD ALMIGHTY, the Maker of the world; and his SON, JESUS CHRIST, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, on the third day raised again from the dead, received in the heavens, sitting now at the right hand of the Father, coming to judge the quick and the dead, also through the resurrection of the flesh."

Tertullian, 200 AD


Enough for ya?

Of course, you may respond that these Creeds and statements were written by men who were Catholic. I agree! However, they were not Roman Catholic by any stretch.

Edited December 25, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Archangel]

[quote]And I repeat - you beg the question by assuming that the church Catholic subsists in those ecclesiastical groups who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.[/quote]

And [b]you[/b] beg the question that it exists in those groups who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

[quote] Come to think of it, I can do you one better. I can think of a bunch of the Fathers that teach at least the basics of the Faith that I hold as a member of the Anglican Communion biggrin.gif I can guarantee that they were not Roman Catholics, either, because the Roman Catholic Church did not exist yet (ca. 325 A.D.) [/quote]

I can do you even better. The Early Church Fathers taught not just the basic truths that Christians believe in, but also the truths of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g., Sacred Tradition, Mary & The Saints, The Papacy, etc.). You can read the quotes right here: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp[/url]

Here are a few:

[b]St. Ignatius of Antioch[/b]

"Ignatius . . . [b]to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans,[/b] worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

[b]St. Irenaeus of Lyons[/b]

"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 [b]the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome[/b] 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. [b]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[/b]" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

That's more than enough for ya!

And I repeat, Jesus said it Himself in Matthew 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and [b]upon this rock I will build my church[/b], and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." The line of popes can be traced back directly to St. Peter. You can see the list here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm[/url] This was way before 325 A.D.

I can guarantee you that they weren't Anglicans because the Anglican church did not exist until 1534 A.D. This was way, way after 325 A.D.

[quote]Of course, you may respond that these Creeds and statements were written by men who were Catholic. I agree! However, they were not Roman Catholic by any stretch.[/quote]

If they were not Roman Catholic, then what denomination were they? They certainly weren't Anglicans!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Dec 24 2004, 11:28 PM'] I can guarantee you that they weren't Anglicans because the Anglican church did not exist until 1534 A.D. This was way, way after 325 A.D.
[/quote]
Not so. The Anglican Church was first established with the first missionaries to the British Isles.

[Archangel]

Where were these first missionaries from and who sent them?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Dec 25 2004, 03:11 AM'] Where were these first missionaries from and who sent them? [/quote]
Their names were Phagan and Deruvian, they were sent in 167, and they were sent by the Roman Bishop, I will grant you that last. However, the Celtic Church existed for hundreds of years independent of the See of Rome - she was independent, much as the Eastern Orthodox today are. She only sought Rome's authority when it became politically expedient for her, and then when the Pope decided to overstep his bounds and interfered too much in the affairs of the English Church, she again became independent.

I don't see how this makes us any worse in your estimation than the Eastern Orthodox, however.

At any rate, Anglicans are not Romans. We have our own Liturgy, our own Prayerbook, and we adhere to the Creeds. You don't see the Pope constantly hounding the Byzantines to change themselves and become Romans. Why should he hound us?

Edited December 25, 2004 by ICTHUS

[hyperdulia again]

the celtic church was roughly analagous to the suis iuris eastern churches of today; it was as catholic as the roman rite, but it developed it's own ecclesial structures (monasteries not bishops dominated) and theological language while recognizing the SUPREME ROMAN PONTIFF as the final arbiter in all disputes, and the earthly head of the one fold, outside of which there is no salvation.

protestant ignorance of history never ceases to amaze me.

*sips coffee*

[Archangel]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 24 2004, 11:34 PM']Their names were Phagan and Deruvian, they were sent in 167, and they were sent by the Roman Bishop, I will grant you that last.[/quote]

So, the Anglican church has Roman roots. It had to start from somewhere.

[quote]She only sought Rome's authority when it became politically expedient for her, and then when the Pope decided to overstep his bounds and interfered too much in the affairs of the English Church, she again became independent.[/quote]

Who was this Pope who "decided to overstep his bounds and interefed too much in the affairs of the English Church"?