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.