A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[jimpres]

What about the Pope at the turn of the first millenium, who had regular intercourse with his mother? He was 16 yrs old!] Or all the other doings of various popes? These are things we shouldn’t wantonly indulge ourselves with!

The church is made up of human beings who will sin but are able to be forgiven. None of us is perfect.

 

[placido]

We must mix with different sections of the Orthodox!
However the Anglican Church with its two thousand years history must be prepared to be
judged, not so much by either of the two sections of the One True Church, but by the standards of the early Church of the first thousand years. I think Anglicanism, catholicity with an English face, will come out of it!

You talk of a 2 000 years history of the Anglican church. Do you mean to say Anglicanism always existed apart from the “two sections of the One True Church” or that it was part of one of the “two sections” before it separated in the 16th century?

placido

 

[placido]

You show a poor understanding of history, that is Catholic History within the wider Church, or the history of the Roman Catholic Church , a particular church!

There was 1500 yrs of Catholic history, what happened in the first thousand years, especially the first 350 are the important sections, Henry’s behaviour was conditioned by the later papal innovations and additions.He was following later custom and practice , it was medievalism!

Regardless of my poor understanding of history … did Henry need papal approval for his divorce/annulment or not? Why?

placido

 

[placido]

What about the Pope at the turn of the first millenium, who had regular intercourse with his mother? He was 16 yrs old!] Or all the other doings of various popes? These are things we shouldn’t wantonly indulge ourselves with!

That one is new to me. But even if true (and scandalous as it sounds) … “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” (Matthew 23:3).

placido

 

[jimpres]

What about the Pope at the turn of the first millenium, who had regular intercourse with his mother? He was 16 yrs old!] Or all the other doings of various popes? These are things we shouldn’t wantonly indulge ourselves with!

Which Pope and century? References please

 

[Tomb54]

Cinette;6860295:

Dear Cinette,

You might be right about your name’s origin, but I can’t see it personally! I’ve already pointed out that at Trent, where your Church was founded, the name was adopted 1564 AD. You were catholics previous to that, but, Suburbicarian ones.Now??

As for being angry? Not really! I was in 1994 when the Canterbury Communion made priestesses, but not now. I realise that as an Anglican, I am a Catholic, because I am a member of the Body of Christ and a Child of God and I believe the revelation of Christ, but that doesn’t make me admire the Anglo-Catholics anymore than I did. Twice these people have let us down, [they provided the Bishops who sold us out ] for, safe seats, either in Rome or the C.of E.

Take Care,

Seamusmohr!

This might have been answered allready but you can verify in History that the Catholic Church exist way before 1564. The ECF mentioned it several time from 105 to 400 AD in their writings even before the bible was compiled by the Catholic church. Look it up it is all there. the ECF also mentions Rome being special amoung the early churches. I will Provide quotes if you think you need them.

 

[Tomb54]

We must mix with different sections of the Orthodox!
However the Anglican Church with its two thousand years history must be prepared to be
judged, not so much by either of the two sections of the One True Church, but by the standards of the early Church of the first thousand years. I think Anglicanism, catholicity with an English face, will come out of it!

The Anglican church was never catholic they picked that back up years after Henry left the CC church to make them sound more legit. The Anglican Church was founded on a sin by it’s leader the King of England. The Anglican church is still ruled by the Quenn of England today even if she it as figure head. Even now you must be Anglican to be in the Royal family. You can read all about King Henry even in the noraml history books.

 

[seamusmohr]

If Henry needed papal approval for him to be able to get an annulment or a divorce or whatever, then Henry was under the Pope up to that point, isn’t it?
Or, do annulments in the Anglican church normally require papal approval?
placido

Custom and practice! That is why Henry asked for an annulment from the pope!
he would have got one but for the unfortunate circumstances mentioned in an earlier post! When he couldn’ t move the pope,Henry or Cranmer, bethought themselves of the answer that had been held by thousands, the teachings of the Councils whose authority the pope had usurped!

 

[seamusmohr]

The Anglican church was never catholic they picked that back up years after Henry left the CC church to make them sound more legit. The Anglican Church was founded on a sin by it’s leader the King of England. The Anglican church is still ruled by the Quenn of England today even if she it as figure head. Even now you must be Anglican to be in the Royal family. You can read all about King Henry even in the noraml history books.

Friend,
Anglican Church was never Catholic? You’ve been reading penny dreadfuls, the Church in Britain has a Catholic History of some two thousand years, just refresh me where it falls short, please! I’m talking about the Church , not individuals by the way!
Neither did Henry leave the Church, there was no separation until Eliza’s time 1570 AD, when the Roman Catholics left the Church and set up their own altars. becoming a Sect in the process!!
The Monarch,/ State or whatever? In what ever country is the First Magistrate/That is what Henry was, and is interested in the goings on of the Church, Henry was no different than anyone else also the Church should be under the law. The present bankrupt state of many of the Roman Catholic diocese proves that point!

What do you think the Pope did as Ruler of Rome and Northern Italy, divorce himself from reality? As Bishop Cosin, said ,[roughly,] ‘My footman has as much to say as the King’.
That Henry was a monster, I’ve no doubt, but believe me that is a line no Roman Catholic should go down, because the place it leads to is full of papal crimes as well as Royal ones!

The Church was in Britain some years after the Crucifixtion, it has a life that is clearly recorded and attested.

 

[seamusmohr]

That one is new to me. But even if true (and scandalous as it sounds) … “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” (Matthew 23:3).

placido

It isn’t what your Roman Catholic friends say about Henry’s disgusting practices and he never had sexual relations with his mam!

 

[seamusmohr]

What do you think needs explaining. The Catholic Church was centered in Rome from the days of St. Peter.

The Catholic Church was indeed in Rome from the days Peter, it was in Rome earlier, as I understand it under Paul! But it was not the fulness of the Church, just a Communion of believers.
Jerusalem was the City of Christ and the Apostles to my mind.

 

[placido]

Custom and practice! That is why Henry asked for an annulment from the pope!
he would have got one but for the unfortunate circumstances mentioned in an earlier post! When he couldn’ t move the pope,Henry or Cranmer, bethought themselves of the answer that had been held by thousands, the teachings of the Councils whose authority the pope had usurped!

I can see that you handling the issue in a very creative manner, trying to distract our attentions from the facts by bringing in the so-called “circumstances”.
The irrefutable fact remains: Henry needed Papal approval for his divorce/annulment. In other words, up to that point, Henry was Catholic and he recognized the Pope as head of the Catholic Church.
Please let us be honest on this one: no leader of the Anglican Church – an apart church altogether – would ever seek papal approval for annulment simply because that was the so-called “custom and practice”.

placido

 

[placido]

It isn’t what your Roman Catholic friends say about Henry’s disgusting practices and he never had sexual relations with his mam!

The issue with Henry is breaking away from the One True Church – whatever the pretext.
Unfortunately Henry wanted a divorce/annulment and when that was denied him, he used that as pretext to break away from the Church.
And, please, refer me to a credible source of your information about a Pope who was having sexual intercourse with his own mom … that is a serious scandal!

placido

 

[seamusmohr]

For example?
Others would disagree with you. Why are you right and why are they wrong? Why not the other way round? Are you infallible?

Why am I right? I have been taught the faith at my Church and that knowledge has been re-enforced by my own study and reading Anglican /Orthodox literature over the last years.

Says who? I am 100 % sure you can not quote scripture that says so. BTW, can you mention at least one Ecumenical Council that did not need Papal endorsement? Just one.

Do you have any idea what makes a Council , Ecumenical? It is acceptance by the Church! The canons of the General Councils were sent out to the various bishops and diocese for endorsement! The pope did no more than what he was expected to do as a Bishop and Patriarch! For instance, both S. Athanasius and the Empoer Constantine commented on the fact that the British Bishops had accepted, that is endorsed, the Canons of Nicea!

The deposit as defined by Seamusmohr?

Not quite, but certainly the Deposit has defined by Paul!

placido

 

[Memaw]

The issue with Henry is breaking away from the One True Church – whatever the pretext.
Unfortunately Henry wanted a divorce/annulment and when that was denied him, he used that as pretext to break away from the Church.
And, please, refer me to a credible source of your information about a Pope who was having sexual intercourse with his own mom … that is a serious scandal!

placido

Seamusmohr loves to rewrite history,he has no credible source. I wouldn’t give you a plug nickle for anything he has to say. I think hes another one of those ‘trouble-makers’. Pray for him. God Bless, Memaw

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

I have been reading your post with a growing sense of wonder… I am just wondering where it is you are getting your material. I can understand that your insults and distortions of secular history are defensive, but, this blather you are putting out has probably reached an offensive level.

May I suggest that you just calm down - and, while you are doing this, you can prepare some link to reference areas you are questioning. This probably would enable you to add a whole new tone of civility to future posts.

If this doesn’t work, then I guess Memaw’s idea of just ignoring your posts is the best approach.

God bless

It isn’t what your Roman Catholic friends say about Henry’s disgusting practices and he never had sexual relations with his mam!

 

[placido]

Why am I right? I have been taught the faith at my Church and that knowledge has been re-enforced by my own study and reading Anglican /Orthodox literature over the last years.

And I have been taught the faith at my Church and that knowledge has been re-enforced by my own study and reading Catholic/Anglican /Orthodox literature over the last years … yet we still disagree. And you have no solution for that disagreement. Why? Because you have appointed yourself as the final authority. That is the problem.

Do you have any idea what makes a Council , Ecumenical? It is acceptance by the Church! The canons of the General Councils were sent out to the various bishops and diocese for endorsement! The pope did no more than what he was expected to do as a Bishop and Patriarch! For instance, both S. Athanasius and the Empoer Constantine commented on the fact that the British Bishops had accepted, that is endorsed, the Canons of Nicea!

That is revisionist history not worth commenting on. I wonder where you are getting your information from.
*** And please … don’t forget to give me references on your source of your infomation on a Pope who supposedly was having sexual intercourse with his own mother.
The sooner you do that, the better!

placido

 

[Tomb54]

Friend,
Anglican Church was never Catholic? You’ve been reading penny dreadfuls, the Church in Britain has a Catholic History of some two thousand years, just refresh me where it falls short, please! I’m talking about the Church , not individuals by the way!
Neither did Henry leave the Church, there was no separation until Eliza’s time 1570 AD, when the Roman Catholics left the Church and set up their own altars. becoming a Sect in the process!!
The Monarch,/ State or whatever? In what ever country is the First Magistrate/That is what Henry was, and is interested in the goings on of the Church, Henry was no different than anyone else also the Church should be under the law. The present bankrupt state of many of the Roman Catholic diocese proves that point!

What do you think the Pope did as Ruler of Rome and Northern Italy, divorce himself from reality? As Bishop Cosin, said ,[roughly,] ‘My footman has as much to say as the King’.
That Henry was a monster, I’ve no doubt, but believe me that is a line no Roman Catholic should go down, because the place it leads to is full of papal crimes as well as Royal ones!

The Church was in Britain some years after the Crucifixtion, it has a life that is clearly recorded and attested.

Boy are you really weak on History both of the Church and Englands. Was Henry Catholic before HE LEFT THE CHURCH? The answer is yes he was catholic before he left the catholic church that had the pope at the head to start his church based on a sin that is well stated in the bible. Regular history of England has this well documented. Do we need to teach you English history? The Catholic Church was in England shortly after the Crucifixion and it stayed there until King Henry left the church and started killing many of them who would not join his heresy. So the church should be under the law? It is under God’s law not a King who wanted to commit adultery. Since when should God’s church be under human law if it was then it would be in the same state as the Anglican Church finds itself today, allowing gays to marry and even having active Gay bishops.

No wonder so many concerned Anglicans are taking a closer look at the Church that the Anglican Church broke away from. This closer look is also why many are finding the whole truth and coming home to the Catholic Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tomb54,

I think you have put the spotlight on a most important aspect of this discussion on our Anglican brothers.

Since when should God’s church be under human law if it was then it would be in the same state as the Anglican Church finds itself today, allowing gays to marry and even having active Gay bishops.

No wonder so many concerned Anglicans are taking a closer look at the Church that the Anglican Church broke away from. This closer look is also why many are finding the whole truth and coming home to the Catholic Church.

While some would apparently benefit from reviewing actual history rather then the revisionist version they are fascinated with… current history may have more of an impact.

The on-going implosion of the church founded by Henry out of spite so he could contnue to be a serial adulterous monarch has caught the world’s eye. There apparently is no theology based on God’s Word - the governing principle is to take on the standards of the world so steeped in sin and death that one more joining its ranks is a cause for celebration. The Devil must be feeling a sense of satisfaction with him having lead so many towards such self-inflicted misery.

God bless

 

[jimpres]

I just saw on EWTN that the Anglican church of Canada is merging with the Catholic Church.
Welcome to those coming to the Catholic church.