- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All of them. There are no new doctrines.Go ahead and name one person who in the first 300 years adhered to what would become RC's doctrines of today.
That's what it means to you, but that's not what it means to the Church.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.
Document?Cyril of Jerusalem, granted female virgin's the 9-months of Christ's development, not the life of Mary.
Not at all.Are you denying that Mass is a sacrifice?
As expected. There's no one from the first couple centuries that espouse the new doctrines of what would become RC.All of them. There are no new doctrines.
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.As expected. There's no one from the first couple centuries that espouse the new doctrines of what would become RC.
Nope.A sacrifice of flesh and blood you deny?
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 would seem denial of self contradiction is a frequent and common ritual.
Sans blood, except for the blood.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.
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.
Wrong. First, pre-RC would be pre-Christ. Secondly, the dogmas were dogmatized later, but believed early on.None of the Marian dogmas existed in the church pre RC.
There must have been, because Tertullian wrote based on...someone before him.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.
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.
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.Trent dogmatized RC's canon, but only for herself and no one else agrees with her.
Actually, it's been shown over and over that papacy and Marian dogmas were part of the earliest church.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.
Rome is its own authority. I understand that. It should matter to you, however, that the church disagrees 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.
Actually, it's been shown over and over that papacy and Marian dogmas were part of the earliest church.
It is finished.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.
"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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?