Icthus.... Please show me...

[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

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 27 2004, 06:00 PM'] 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. [/quote]
ICTHUS, this kind of response is beneath you. Try to remain charitable.

Belated Merry Christmas and God bless,
Todd

[james]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 27 2004, 08:11 PM'] Of course "The Church" is the One True Church. But "The Church" is not the Roman Catholic Church.

[/quote]


What according to your belief is "The Church," specifically?

Edited December 28, 2004 by james

[Quietfire]

[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]
The early Church most definitely believed in purgatory and praying for the dead. Unless you are reading from a Protestant Bible. May I suggest you obtain a Catholic Bible that has all the books that werent removed by Luther.
[quote]Of course "The Church" is the One True Church. But "The Church" is not the Roman Catholic Church.[/quote]
Sorry, it is the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the same now as it was 2000 years ago when it was founded by Our Lord and the keys were given to Peter.
[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?[/quote]
No, Im sure he isnt. Just like Im sure when you state Roman Catholic, you are actually trying to say Catholic.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='james' date='Dec 27 2004, 08:29 PM']

What according to your belief is "The Church," specifically? [/quote]
[quote]I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6][/quote]

1. Ephesians 1:10-23, Ephesians 5:23-32
2. 1 Cor 1:2, 1 Cor 12:12-13, Psalm 2:8, Rev 7:9, Rom 15:9-12
3. 1 Cor 7:14, Acts 2:39, Eze 16:20-21, Romans 11:16, Genesis 17:7
4. Matt 13:47, Isa 9:7,
5. Eph 2:19, Eph 3:15.
6. Acts 2:47

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Dec 27 2004, 08:31 PM']



No, Im sure he isnt.  Just like Im sure when you state Roman Catholic, you are actually trying to say Catholic. [/quote]
[quote]The early Church most definitely believed in purgatory and praying for the dead.  Unless you are reading from a Protestant Bible.  May I suggest you obtain a Catholic Bible that has all the books that werent removed by Luther.  [/quote] My copy of the Holy Scriptures contains the apocrypha, but I do not consider them Holy Scripture (they are certainly profitable for reading, but we do not look to them to establish any doctrine)

[quote]Sorry, it is the Roman Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church is the same now as it was 2000 years ago when it was founded by Our Lord and the keys were given to Peter. [/quote] Begs the question.

[quote]No, Im sure he isnt. Just like Im sure when you state Roman Catholic, you are actually trying to say Catholic[/quote] No, [color=red] edited for lack of manners [/color], I wasn't. I said Roman Catholic because I do not believe that the Catholic Church subsists within you.

Edited December 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 27 2004, 06:43 PM'] No, . . ., I wasn't. I said Roman Catholic because I do not believe that the Catholic Church subsists within you. [/quote]
It is rather foolish to call everyone who is in communion with the Pope "Roman" Catholic, because many Catholics are not "Roman" at all.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Icthus, try breathing deeply a few times before posting a message so that you can avoid making rude comments.

[Paladin D]

ICTHUS, not all Catholics in the Roman Catholic Church are "Roman". Would you call a Byzantine Catholic a "Roman Catholic"?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Dec 27 2004, 09:14 PM'] ICTHUS, not all Catholics in the Roman Catholic Church are "Roman". Would you call a Byzantine Catholic a "Roman Catholic"? [/quote]
Yes, because he chooses to put himself under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 27 2004, 10:11 PM']
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]
Yes you do.

The Early Church did believe in Purgatory. Purgatory has been taught since before Christ came.

We do not pray to the dead. The Early Church and Catholics of today pray to Saints who are alive in Heaven. There are many Anglicans that pray to Mary and even use the Rosary (http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/AngRC-diffEng.html).

They are mentioned in Scripture, you should really read it. Like how the Apostles taught that women shouldn't be and cannot be ordained.

You do not know what you are talking about... as usual, and I'll post everything again, which I have posted on these topics to you, and you'll ignore them without any rebutal... because you know your wrong and it appears that you are ok with error.



The Catholic Church coined the term "purgatory" to describe what is spoken of in the bible.
Look these up....
1 Peter 3:19 Matt. 12:32 Luke 12:59 2 Macc. 12:43-46 Rev 20:13-15
Rev. 21:27 1 Cor 3:15 Isaiah 6:6-7

Read below and learn (from Jewish site: [url="http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm#kaddish)"]http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm#kaddish)[/url]
make sure you note the bold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kaddish
Kaddish is commonly known as a mourner's prayer, but in fact, variations on the Kaddish prayer are routinely recited at many other times, and the prayer itself has nothing to do with death or mourning. The prayer begins "May His great Name grow exalted and sanctified in the world that He created as He willed. May He give reign to His kingship in your lifetimes and in your days ..." and continues in much that vein. The real mourner's prayer is El Molai Rachamim, which is recited at grave sites and during funerals.

Why, then, is Kaddish recited by mourners?

After a great loss like the death of a parent, you might expect a person to lose faith in G-d, or to cry out against G-d's injustice. Instead, Judaism requires a mourner to stand up every day, publicly (i.e., in front of a minyan, a quorum of 10 adult men), and reaffirm faith in G-d despite this loss. To do so inures to the merit of the deceased in the eyes of G-d, because the deceased must have been a very good parent to raise a child who could express such faith in the face of personal loss.

Then why is Kaddish recited for only 11 months, when the mourning period is 12 months? According to Jewish tradition, the soul must spend some time purifying itself before it can enter the World to Come. The maximum time required for purification is 12 months, for the most evil person. To recite Kaddish for 12 months would imply that the parent was the type who needed 12 months of purification! To avoid this implication, the Sages decreed that a son should recite Kaddish for only eleven months.

----------------------------------

The Acts of Paul and Thecla



"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).


Abercius



"The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius" (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).


The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity



"[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other . . . and [I] knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment" (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]).


Tertullian



"We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]" (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

"A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).


Cyprian of Carthage



"The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace [i.e., reconciliation] is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord" (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).


Cyril of Jerusalem



"Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out" (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).


Gregory of Nyssa



"If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).


John Chrysostom



"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

"Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf" (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402]).


Augustine



"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death" (ibid., 172:2).

"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

"The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death" (ibid., 29:109).




[quote]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. [/quote]

When are you going to connect the dots on this topic?

Rome says the Angelicans are not in communion... the Angelicans attempt to reconcile with Rome to get in communion. This is just another nugget to show Rome has the authority.

The Angelican church broke off from the Catholic Church because of a King that had no control of himself and the king thought he was above the Church established by Christ. How the angelican church began proves that it's just another group that fits Acts 20:30...



[quote]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. [/quote]



Wrong again. I did reply and no the Church does not declare her own orders invalid.


[quote]
[url="http://www.anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html"]http://www.anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html[/url]
The name "Anglican" means "of England", but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians. The Anglican Church evolved as part of the Roman church, but the Celtic influence was folded back into the Roman portion of the church in many ways, perhaps most notably by Charlemagne's tutor Aidan. The Anglican church was spread worldwide first by English colonization and then by English-speaking missionaries.

[/quote]

Sad how they treat the primitive faith like a buffet....

Let's look at some quotes from St. Augustine...

Rightly, then, Catholic Church, most true mother of Christians.
- St. Augustine. On The Trinity. Chapter 30, para. 62

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).


"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).





It will be interesting to see if you ignore, blow off, or drop this thread.
Since the anglican church came out of the Catholic Church, they cannot be of the One True Faith because the Apostles said so... WHOEVER leaves the group does so to their own destruction. Acts 20:29-20. We know people will come forth distorting the truth... We know that the One True Church will never be overcome and guided in all truth and is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth... The True Church will have had Peter as the first Head Bishop.... THEREFORE any church that does not have the Successor of Peter CANNOT be the One Faith.


God Bless.

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Since the anglican church came out of the Catholic Church, they cannot be of the One True Faith because the Apostles said so... WHOEVER leaves the group does so to their own destruction. Acts 20:29-20[/quote] No, you beg the question by assuming that the catholic church subsists within the Church of Rome. The Anglican communion is a member of the universal church.