"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

[Root of Jesse]

Go ahead and name one person who in the first 300 years adhered to what would become RC's doctrines of today.

All of them. There are no new doctrines.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Have at it and you may see. If you have any questions afterwards, feel free to post again.

Tertullian
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.i.html

Irenaeus, in comparing Mary and Eve said they both "were yet virgins". Which implies, as we know, they didn't remain virgins.

That's what it means to you, but that's not what it means to the Church.

Cyril of Jerusalem, granted female virgin's the 9-months of Christ's development, not the life of Mary.

Document?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Are you denying that Mass is a sacrifice?

Not at all.

 

[Standing Up]

All of them. There are no new doctrines.

As expected. There's no one from the first couple centuries that espouse the new doctrines of what would become RC.

 

[Standing Up]

Not at all.

A sacrifice of flesh and blood you deny?

 

[Rick Otto]

All of them. There are no new doctrines.

Lol.
You're sense of reality is definitely Catholic.

 

[Rick Otto]

A sacrifice of flesh and blood you deny?

It would seem denial of self contradiction is a frequent and common ritual.

 

[LLoJ]

Root of Jesse said: ↑
All of them. There are no new doctrines.

Lol.
You're sense of reality is definitely Catholic.

Shouldn't that be unreality ehehe

 

[Root of Jesse]

As expected. There's no one from the first couple centuries that espouse the new doctrines of what would become RC.

The point you're missing is that there are no new doctrines. There is deeper understanding of doctrine, but no new doctrine. I understand that you think the canon of Scripture was set in stone at Trent, but that's just not so. It was declared at Trent, but held as early as 300. The same is true of the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and so on. There's nothing new in Catholicism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

A sacrifice of flesh and blood you deny?

Nope.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It would seem denial of self contradiction is a frequent and common ritual.

Nothing of the sort. The sacrifice of the Mass is an entrance into the very Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. We don't crucify him over and over. It's the one and very same sacrifice He made on Calvary.

 

[Standing Up]

Nothing of the sort. The sacrifice of the Mass is an entrance into the very Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. We don't crucify him over and over. It's the one and very same sacrifice He made on Calvary.

Sans blood, except for the blood.

 

[Standing Up]

The point you're missing is that there are no new doctrines. There is deeper understanding of doctrine, but no new doctrine. I understand that you think the canon of Scripture was set in stone at Trent, but that's just not so. It was declared at Trent, but held as early as 300. The same is true of the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and so on. There's nothing new in Catholicism.

None of the Marian dogmas existed in the church pre RC.

The scripture was held as early as Polycarp and Melito, but is different from that which exists in what would become OO, EO, and RC.

Most everything RC holds is new to RC. Getting back to the OP, as we've shown, there are no ECFs pre Tertullian who understand the rock to refer to those who have been building at Rome.

 

[Root of Jesse]

None of the Marian dogmas existed in the church pre RC.

Wrong. First, pre-RC would be pre-Christ. Secondly, the dogmas were dogmatized later, but believed early on.

The scripture was held as early as Polycarp and Melito, but is different from that which exists in what would become OO, EO, and RC.

Most everything RC holds is new to RC. Getting back to the OP, as we've shown, there are no ECFs pre Tertullian who understand the rock to refer to those who have been building at Rome.

There must have been, because Tertullian wrote based on...someone before him.
You think that just because Trent dogmatized the canon, that the canon wasn't in place beforehand? Get real.

 

[Standing Up]

Wrong. First, pre-RC would be pre-Christ. Secondly, the dogmas were dogmatized later, but believed early on.
There must have been, because Tertullian wrote based on...someone before him.
You think that just because Trent dogmatized the canon, that the canon wasn't in place beforehand? Get real.

Trent dogmatized RC's canon, but only for herself and no one else agrees with her.

On some of the dogmas, yes they existed before RC dogmatized them. But were they in the church? The answer is no. It's been shown over and over that papacy and Marian dogmas like ever-virgin weren't part of the earliest church.

Again the example is "Peter as rock" that no one believed, but Rome c200ad, which Tertullian shows as Rome usurping what was given to Peter alone. Peter opened the door to Jew and Gentile, preaching the same grace message to both.

Unless you're afraid the "gates of hell" will prevail, and don't trust Christ, some will need an earthly master to cause consternation and distrust, thus invoking an ongoing usurpation. IOW, the church has existed and people as the church, since Pentecost, long before Rome would force her dogmas on people.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Trent dogmatized RC's canon, but only for herself and no one else agrees with her.

Np one else? First, should that matter to us? Why, for example, would protestants trust Jews to give them their canon??? But saying no one else agrees is like saying four out of five believe something, but nobody else does.

On some of the dogmas, yes they existed before RC dogmatized them. But were they in the church? The answer is no. It's been shown over and over that papacy and Marian dogmas like ever-virgin weren't part of the earliest church.

Actually, it's been shown over and over that papacy and Marian dogmas were part of the earliest church.

 

[Standing Up]

Np one else? First, should that matter to us? Why, for example, would protestants trust Jews to give them their canon??? But saying no one else agrees is like saying four out of five believe something, but nobody else does.
Actually, it's been shown over and over that papacy and Marian dogmas were part of the earliest church.

Rome is its own authority. I understand that. It should matter to you, however, that the church disagrees with her.

Show us those who believed the papacy and Marian dogmas pre 220ad.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What church? You guys who separated? I care, but I'm not dragging you. You gotta come willingly.

Um, Matthew 16:15-20, Jesus and the disciples knew Peter was the leader of the apostles. Acts 15 confirms it. Marian dogmas come from Luke 1-2, and the PoE you love so much. Others stem from them.

 

[Rick Otto]

Nothing of the sort. The sacrifice of the Mass is an entrance into the very Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. We don't crucify him over and over. It's the one and very same sacrifice He made on Calvary.

It is finished.
But I admire your imaginative zeal.

 

[Rick Otto]

What church? You guys who separated? I care, but I'm not dragging you. You gotta come willingly.

Um, Matthew 16:15-20, Jesus and the disciples knew Peter was the leader of the apostles. Acts 15 confirms it. Marian dogmas come from Luke 1-2, and the PoE you love so much. Others stem from them.

"I didn't do it!" was my first complete sentence. I was in a high chair at the supper table, and mom had mentioned something that been done wrong, or something done that was itself wrong, and I so wanted to be a part of the conversation, that after my 3 siblings had said, "I didn't do it", I chimed in. I remember because everyone broke up laughing.
It was probably something I couldn't have done, and my enthusiasm was comically inappropriate.

Yeah, I know all about those stemmings and confirmations, and the nature of the authority upon which they "rest".