Another Primitive Faith question....

[Thunderchild]

Tertullian - no support for prayers to the dead.
Lactantius - praying to the dead is impiety and violates sacred law
Hermas - (the passage cited makes no mention of prayer to the dead)
Clement - the saints uphold the prayers of the believer.
AD 233 - Origen - passage cited does not support prayer to dead saints - Origen and Clement are in accord.
Cyprian - supports prayers for, not to...as for Clement and Origen

AD 305 - Methodius - guaranteed to support prayer to dead people (well, one dead person, anyway)
AD 311 (circa) - Lactantius - no prayer to dead saints
AD 350 - Cyril - Praying to the dead supported
AD 350 - Anonymous - Anonymous is a reliable witness? support for praying to the dead.
AD 365 - Hilary - not on topic
AD 370 - Ephraim - Prayer to the dead supported
AD 373 - Basil - Prayer to God asking him to look with favour upon the prayers of dead people for the supplicant. Not cited - prayer to the dead.
AD 375 - Pectorius - obviously died before his parents. An epitaph requesting that the living pray FOR the dead.
AD 380 - Gregory - Support for concept of praying to dead people.
AD 392 - John Chrysostom - Yes, support for praying to dead people
AD 393 - Ambrose - expression of a wish, no more, in the passage cited
AD 406 - Jerome - hmmm. in support, contradicting Vigilantius, of prayers to the dead
AD 411 - Augustine - Support of prayers to the dead.

Would seem that the overwhelming majority of people from AD 200 on, supported praying to the dead.

 

[KC Catholic]

Originally posted by Fr. Rob
KC-

"You started the quotes...I simply proved that your facts are not totally true, thus leading others to believe false notions."

Again, so long as there is one diseenting voice in the Primitive Church that stands against something, you cannot post hundreds of quotes and expect me to just capitulate.

 

WHERE is the primative church today? Those quotes are from people who were C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C not from the PEC.

They were the authority of the Catholic Church, which is my church, not yours. The teaching Magesterium of the Catholic Church states that we are in communion with the Saints. Based off Sacred Tradition, supported by scripture and practiced longer than the PEC has been around.

One person objected. Last I checked, only a handful of people objected to Christ's crucifixion. . . and they went ahead and did it anyway. Not that it was right - though it was planned - but further proof that the majority is not always right. [/B]

What does that have to do with anything? You call that defending your faith?

The quotes you made prove to me very little, other than 1) there was considerable discussion on the topic about which no full and general consensus was reached [/B]

What?!? What is the teaching majesterium (sp) of the Catholic Church, established 2000 years ago by Christ - not 5 years ago from breakaway Bishop.

Further, you can't answer a charge along the lines of "unforgivable rites" with hundreds of other quotes. . . none of which answer the original charge. If there was a quote from, say, Nicea I that said, "Concerning Lactantius and his heresy, we condem it. . . " then I'd be apt to listen.

Sure it answers the question...its very valid. I just don't have "Fr." in front of my name. You used quotes from the Fathers of the church to prove your position, I used quotes from the same set of folks to disprove your position.

Also, putting aside our disagreement on what constitutes Catholicisim, I cleary identify myself in my signature line as a Presbyter of the Primitive Episcopal Church. I'll let the users of the forum decide what they want to call me.

Fr. Rob [/B]

Ok.

 

[KC Catholic]

Nevermind

 

[Wolseley]

Once again, what it all boils down to is authority.

Does the individual have the authority to read the Scriptures and the Patristic writings and decide what is truth and what is not, based on his own understanding?

Or, does the Church have the authority to interpret the Scriptures, the Patristic writings, and all other documents produced by the Catholic faithful, and decide what is truth and what is not, based on her mandate from Christ?

Most Protestants, taking their lead from Luther's disastrous insistance that everyone can interpret the Bible for himself, would say that the individual does.

The Catholic would say the Church does. Origen, Tertullian, and many of the other Fathers wrote things that were erroneous, and sometimes even downright heretical.....it is the job of the Church to sort through those writings and decide what is orthodox and what is not, even as she did with the Scriptures. If the writings are orthodox but obscure, it is likewise the job of the Church to explain them for the faithful, not the job of the individual himself.

I can err. Even the Fathers, as individual teachers, can err. But the Church cannot err. St. Vincent of Lerens said it best: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm. (Or, look under http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ "Vincent of Lerins".)

"In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics amd schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to persue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man."

 

[Thunderchild]

Does the individual have the authority to read the Scriptures and the Patristic writings and decide what is truth and what is not, based on his own understanding?

But naturally. The very fact that it is claimed "every prophecy of scripture came about, not of its own, but holy men of God spoke..." (etc and so forth), shows that the Bible declares it improper to engage in private study is all the proof necessary to establish as fact that private study is essential.

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by Fr. Rob
Also, putting aside our disagreement on what constitutes Catholicisim, I cleary identify myself in my signature line as a Presbyter of the Primitive Episcopal Church. I'll let the users of the forum decide what they want to call me.

Ok, so you're Primitive Episcopalian and not Catholic. At least we've now gotten that sorted out.

 

[Wolseley]

. The very fact that it is claimed "every prophecy of scripture came about, not of its own, but holy men of God spoke..." (etc and so forth), shows that the Bible declares it improper to engage in private study is all the proof necessary to establish as fact that private study is essential.

English, please?

 

[Thunderchild]

 I was sure that someone told me debate was forbidden in this forum Now I find not only debate, but questioning of one person's probity by another And further, a ridiculing of one person's denomination by a person from a different denomination.

Have the rules been changed while I was looking, that banned such behaviour, or are monitors exempt from the rules?

 

[isshinwhat]

Again, so long as there is one diseenting voice in the Primitive Church that stands against something, you cannot post hundreds of quotes and expect me to just capitulate.

Father Rob,

Given that half of the Bishops were at one timne Arian, are we to admit the possibility the the Trinity as we understand it is a heretical doctrine? If not, then upon whose authority are we to base our belief that it is not? It wasn't universally held pre-Nicea. There are many Scriptures that can be, IMO, twisted to support a variant belief. According to the PCE, what is enough early support to lend creedence to a belief?

Neal

 

[Thunderchild]

Sorry Wolseley - I been reading too much of Paul's writings of late.

To quote 2 Peter 1:20-21 "Firstly know this, that every prophecy of scripture comes about not by its own explanation*, for prophecy is not carried by the will of man at any time: but being moved by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke. (* or more succinctly but with less word for word accuracy, Every prophecy of scripture is not self fulfilling.)

But - to work from a more familiar base - AKJV:
2Pe 1:20 -21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

what is not a matter of private interpretation? prophecy
Which prophecy specifically is being referred to? That which is found in scripture.


CLAIM: This passage declares that no person should undertake a private study of scripture.

RESPONSE: The fact that the claim is made proves that private study is necessary.

 

[Thunderchild]

Neal: Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't a significant personage among the early Church Fathers ridicule the concept that Jesus was at once God and Man?

 

[Thunderchild]

Gracious - Look at all the people on this one little forum.

 

[isshinwhat]

Neal: Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't a significant personage among the early Church Fathers ridicule the concept that Jesus was at once God and Man

Arius.

No, I really don't know who all questioned the belief. Origen believed in a submissive role of the Son, I do know that...

Who did you have in mind?

Neal

 

[Wolseley]

Sorry Wolseley - I been reading too much of Paul's writings of late.

S'alright.

CLAIM: This passage declares that no person should undertake a private study of scripture.

RESPONSE: The fact that the claim is made proves that private study is necessary.

Ah. That makes more sense.

And there is nothing wrong with making a private study of the Scriptures. Even the Pope says so.

It is private interpretation of the Scriptures that can lead to problems. If the Church says A and I say B, one of us is wrong----and it ain't the Church.




__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The truth is out there? Where is "out there"?

 

[isshinwhat]

Gracious - Look at all the people on this one little forum.

Yep. A lot of people I like a lot, all on at one time. Thanks be to God for the little things that make you smile.

Neal

 

[Thunderchild]

Trying to track it even as we are keying Neal. I have just pulled up a bit that I wasn't looking for, dating from the eighth century. "Adoptionism" something to do with Nestorianism, Spain, Muslims, and the western-most sector of the western Church.

Key bits are

The official condemnation of Adoptionism is to be found (1) in Pope Hadrian's two letters, one to the bishops of Spain, 785, and the other to Charlemagne, 794; (2) in the decrees of the Council of Frankfort (794),

and

Since sonship is an attribute of the person and not of the nature, to posit two sons is to posit two persons in Christ, the very error of Nestorianism. Alcuin exactly renders the mind of the Church when he says, "As the Nestorian impiety divided Christ into two persons because of the two natures, so your unlearned temerity divided Him into two sons, one natural and one adoptive"

Oh my, and it continues to cover "the new adoptionism of Abelard in the twelfth century" and even a later one again. All very interesting, but not the piece I remembered (and I think I am looking at the wrong site.) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01150a.htm

 

[Thunderchild]

Well now. Is it not claimed that the passage shows that private interpretation of scripture is proscribed, using that passage as a supporting argument?

 

[Thunderchild]

Oh goody.... I've narrowed the search down to one of a possible 163 000 sites already.

 

[Polycarp]

To All -

I read a very interesting chapter out of one of my books on patristics last night, and I feel it is appropriate to offer what I have read in this thread. The professor states that searching the patristic writings for "proof texts" on ones beliefs is just as wrought with danger as doing so with scripture. The patristic writers did not always agree. But he stressed that in all things necessary they did agree, and those that did not were singled out called to accountability on the issue.

He cautions the student of the patristic writings to look at the whole picture - not just one writer, period, document, or much less a single sentence. I will admit that I posted several passages from the early church to defend my position. I will not do so - until I have completed a much larger study of patristics.

The fact that there was disagreement of thought simply demonstrates that the topic in question was not universally held. The reason the scriptures, as we have them today, were codified is made clear in this point. The Protoevangelium of James was not included in the canon, because it was not universally accepted.

This same point can be made with many of the teachings held today by one group and not another. The fact is that not all things can be required for salvation. The practice of infant baptism in the early church is another good example of this point. Some churches did and others did not – but all churches believed that baptism was necessary.

In all things necessary - Unity
In all else - Diversity
BUT in all things - Charity

 

[Stormy]

Father Rob: I am sorry for the way that other Christian's have attacked you. Whether we be Catholic or Protestant, it is not really important. The thing is that we should be Christian.

You were asked a question and you responded with dignity. You expressed your Faith but did not belittle another's. You are a true Christian.

It is a pleasure to read your post.


To the others:

It is the practice of the Catholic Church, of which you are not a valid member and should stop passing yourself off as "Catholic", because you are not. You are not even a Cafeteria Catholic at best...

Who says that Father Rob's church is not Catholic?
I think Father Rob's Church sounds more like the true Catholic Church. From what the Father has posted, his church appears to have its basis in original truth.

I can understand its need to break away from the Roman "catholic" church. IMO With the passing of time, man has craved out his own religion to the point that there is little resemblance to original Christianity.

As Catholics, we put our faith in our Church, in the teachings of our Church, and trust that She will not lead us astray.

Excuse me. I hate to be the one who brings you back to reality. But your church has led many astray.

See, that's just it that non-Catholics don't understand. These prayers GO to Christ! Who do you think Mary is taking our prayers to? She can't answer them herself? She's taking them to Christ, the one mediator.

The thing with Christianity more so than any religion is that we are able to have a personal relationship to God. Jesus holds out his arms to welcome us in prayer. Why would you want to turn from him and instead speak with someone else?