An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[dianaiad]

Diana,
We are obligated to defend our faith when it is attacked.

Of course you are, and you should. However, that means defending against attacks on YOUR faith, not you going out to specifically attack someone else’s.

We are obligated to protect our beliefs from cultural drift when among those who consistently seek to undermine them.

Of course. The best way to do that is to explain your own beliefs in a clear, thoughtful and persuasive way, not in aiming your theological crossbows at other people.

The only way we can do that is by understanding the beliefs of those who try to impose them on us.

No, the only way to do that is to have a full and complete understanding of your OWN beliefs. If you have that, it doesn’t matter what anybody else believes, does it?

It is called self-defense.

No. Self defense involves waiting for someone else to attack you, then defending yourself. What you do is attack.

We have an obligation to teach our fellow Catholics about Mormonism, and the more abrasive forms of that faith.

No. You have an obligation, if you have an obligation to teach at all, your fellow Catholics about CATHOLICISM. If you have a powerful searchlight to show the way, then trying to point out the candles on the wall are a waste of time, and a distraction. That is especially true when you ‘teach’ incorrect things about Mormonism (or JW’s or Islaam or whatever your target of the week is) and get caught. Nobody will trust you to teach them the truth about anything then—or rather, they should not.

I know that many LDS would rather that we remain ignorant of the deeper Mormon doctrines. Knowing the enemy is the best defense. And, you are not the enemy. The spirit of deception is the enemy.

Indeed it is…and frankly, I would rather you became very well acquainted with ‘deeper Mormon Doctrines,’ so that you would stop teaching stuff that is just plain wrong.

I refuse to go to the MAD board, because I don’t belong there. Through their hostile behavior, they have made that point clear. I also would NEVER receive LDS missionaries into my home. I go to one other board which is inhabited by people who are primarily moderate in their attitudes. I enjoy communicating with liberal LDS.

…and your definition of ‘liberal LDS’ is someone who is only culturally LDS, but doesn’t actually believe in it?

That you don’t go to the MADB board doesn’t surprise me, sir…nor does the fact that you wouldn’t allow missionaries in your home. I don’t get the feeling that you like getting your information about Mormonism from actual Mormons.

Whether you believe it or not, I believe in moderation in all things.

I’ve read some of your book, LJ.

 

[Javl]

To my Catholic and Protestant Brothers and Sisters:

It is understood that anyone who is a follower of Jesus Christ IS a Christian. From my dialogues with members of the LDS, I find and learnt they follow Jesus and His teachings. Although the LDS belief in Jesus ( and the Trinity ) does not follow or agree with that of mainline Christianity we should not consider them non-Christians. The same holds true with other religious organizations that do not believe as we do, some of whom we have accepted as Christians.

Although I do disagree vigorously, and at times vehemently, with their theology, etc, I, for one, will not use any derogatory anti-Christian remarks concerning the LDS Church or its members. I will respect them and impart to them my knowledge concerning my religion ( however miniscule that may be ) as they have respected me and have done likewise with theirs.

*** Let us all act like the Christians we all are supposed to be !!***

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[PopeBono]

To my Catholic and Protestant Brothers and Sisters:

It is understood that anyone who is a follower of Jesus Christ IS a Christian. From my dialogues with members of the LDS, I find and learnt they follow Jesus and His teachings. Although the LDS belief in Jesus ( and the Trinity ) does not follow or agree with that of mainline Christianity we should not consider them non-Christians. The same holds true with other religious organizations that do not believe as we do, some of whom we have accepted as Christians.

Although I do disagree vigorously, and at times vehemently, with their theology, etc, I, for one, will not use any derogatory anti-Christian remarks concerning the LDS Church or its members. I will respect them and impart to them my knowledge concerning my religion ( however miniscule that may be ) as they have respected me and have done likewise with theirs.

*** Let us all act like the Christians we all are supposed to be !!***

Amen!
PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[SteveVH]

How correct you are Steve! We believe that less than 200 years ago a 14 year old farm boy had an experience that changed everything the Christian Church had believed about the Trinity when Joseph Smith saw God and the Father together and that they were separate beings each with Physical bodies! That doctrine does not make us not Christians it is only a different belief than yours as to the nature of God and Christ.
If you want that account as well as the massive debate that took place 300 years or so after the death of Christ as to the nature of God then look at this link for our churches official position on the matter:

The Catholic Church remained intact throughout every “massive debate” as it carried out its mission and purpose to defend the deposit of faith handed down through the Apostles from Jesus Christ himself. The Church has been attacked from both without and within, but has stood fast. History itself documents its authenticity and unique character of apostolic succession. This is not merely a claim, but a historically demonstrable fact.

You can believe anything you wish to believe, PopeBono, but we all must weigh the evidence. Regardless of what you believe about Joseph Smith, the fact remains that the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for 1500 years, and even longer for you. So yes, when someone comes along 1800+ years later and wishes to claim the name of the one who started your Church while proposing beliefs in direct opposition to its teachings, I hope you can at least sort of understand how it might not be well received.

Blessings.

 

[catholic-rcia]

from post #138

No, we don’t. Why should we? I know that sounds a little brash, but…we don’t believe that your Saints are, in truth, elevated above those who have also lived righteous and faithful, (albeit quieter, perhaps) lives. We do not dishonor them, mock or denigrate them, but we don’t think that they are any more special than the folks of our own faith history…who were every inch as righteous, may have produced miracles, and who, I’m quite certain, YOU don’t know didley about…or think deserve canonization.

In all honesty as one who came out of Mormonism, without beleiving in the Trinity I don’t know how one could become a Saint. If you do not know that is is God who does all good works in you how can you give him all the credit? A Saint takes none, if they do they go to confession to start fresh, and they did go to Confession. Your children should learn what the common bond is in an authentic Saint. It has nothing to do with being righteouse and everything to do with knowing they are not. This helps one rely more on Christ. He makes up all the difference, not a bit here and there.

Dianaiad, As he was being barbecued alive he said to his captors, “Turn me; this side is done.” Another was asked by the ruler of Rome to bring him all the churches gold and silver within one day or he would be beheaded. On the twenty-fourth hour he brought the patrons of the church, along with the mentally ill, the sick and disabled. He said very politely and from the heart, “These are the treasures of our church.” He was immediately beheaded.
Father Isaac Jogues, on a mission to North America to convert the native Mohawks, Huron and Iroquois, was captured and forced to run the gauntlet, his beard pulled out, his fingers sawed off with oyster shells, his flesh cut from him and eaten by the villagers. At night he was tied spread-eagle to the ground and the children were encouraged to throw live coals on his bare flesh. After he was Martyred 1,400 North American Indians came to Christ as a direct result of his teaching while in captivity. What He did best was point others to Jesus.
What is a saint? What is the common thread Dianaid? We know that Saint Peter, before he was transformed at Pentecost, denied Jesus three times and later went on to become our Churches first apostolic leader. We also have a paradox in which saints such as the familiar Joan of Ark were actually killed by some in the church. Burnt at the stake. To a Catholic, saints are merely humans, some of whom were miserable people at one time during their lives such as Saint Paul who once had Christians put to their deaths. But one by one the common thread of the Holy Spirit connects each of them.
Continued

 

[catholic-rcia]

There are thousands upon thousands of Saints whose real life stories are documented and live on to this day. They are very important to us because we are able to see Jesus himself in them as they step aside. They came to understand the words of Christ when He said, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life or what can one give in exchange for his life?”

What is this dying to self about which Christ and His gospel speaks to us in volumes? To a learned Catholic dying to self to be raised in Christ holds the common thread of what a saint is all about, this calling of the Shepherd to drop all that seems important in this life to follow Him. Saint Ignatius terms it a relinquishment of “self-will, self-love, and self-interests.” He says it is positive in not seeking honors and esteem of others, and self-condemning because man knows evil is his own doing. Humility is exercised toward God and neighbors: toward God who as the Creator gives man whatever he possesses, and toward his neighbors by recognizing their worth in the eyes of God – in short, the very first two commandments.

Saint Augustine put it like this:
“Pride about our good deeds is pointless. God has his own ideas regarding what is good and he does not always agree with us. If there is anything good about you believe better things of others. This will keep you humble. It will not hurt you at all to consider yourself less righteous than others, but it will be disastrous for you to consider yourself better than even one person.”

Thomas Kempis wrote:
“What must he do? He must give up everything, especially himself, retaining no trace of selfishness. And when he has done everything required of him he must consider it as nothing. He must not agree with others when they applaud him, but rather admit that he is actually an ordinary servant. As the gospel says, ‘When you have done everything you were told to do, say “We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty”’ (Luke 17:10). After admitting this he may be honestly poor in spirit, and may say with the psalmist, ‘Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted’ (Ps. 25:16). And yet, no one will be richer, no one more powerful, no one more free, because he is able to leave himself and all material things behind, and set himself in the lowest place.”

This is what Christ showed the saints; they acted on Christ. This is what we see when we commune with the saints who are much more alive now with God our Father than when they walked the face of the earth. We indeed are a very large family; those in heaven are very much alive. We draw strength from each other’s experience in Jesus. We have a special place in our prayers for saints such as Mary and Joseph who said yes to our Lord, to all the thousands of saints who have gone before us.

For us death does not separate the dead from the living, for in God all that is good is indeed very much alive. All that is good comes to us in and through Christ Jesus. I personally see the saints as pointing to Jesus while deflecting any glory that may come their way, as all glory, honor and righteousness is God’s and His alone. Which one of us can really be trusted with such power? Such Glory? Righteousness and Honor? Those things that belong solely to Jesus? Most of us let those desires get in the way. The saints learned to step aside themselves if only for a moment.

A witness we admire and long to carry on. Do you see a problem here Dianaid? The cloud of witnesses cheering us on in Hebrews? It’s not about the Saints…Its always about Jesus. This is why it is good to know them, to see them point to Him. Looking for no honor upon themselves as they know this is fruitless, that this is sin. It’s the difference between believing in One God and or beleiving you can become a god. I see the Catholic faith as knowing that He alone is to worshipped throughout all eternity. We know God as Father Son and Holy Spirit. We see that the attempt to become a God like a backup quarterback waiting for His turn to prove himself as being offered up by Satan in a garden. Our first parents fell for it as well as the Mormon Church. When we get caught up in the same gane we go to confession. We all commit this sin daily of thinking we are god, we as Catholics just know the game a bit better. I beleive this with all of my heart. And no I am no better that you Dianeaid. I am just as fallen.

 

[dianaiad]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that for 1500 years of Christian history there was only one Christian Church with one set of doctrines and beliefs? I think that might have something to do with defining what the term “Christian” means. We then have the Mormon Church which shows up less than 200 years ago, changes the doctrines known for 1800 years as “Christian”, defines the God-head in such a completely different way that it is unrecognizable as “Christian” to the already existing Christians and then claims the right to adopt their name.
Hmmm…

The problem with that is history. The fact is, there were a LOT of different Christian beliefs out there from early on until one specific set of dogmas/doctrines ‘"won.’ All the rest were labeled ‘heresy,’ but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist! From where I sit, this is one of the most classic examples of 'the winners write the history books" there is.

In fact, it’s a perfect example of the old saying that 'treason never prospers, because if it prospers, none dare call it treason."

The LDS claim is that the ‘winners’ went off the doctrinal rails, and truth really did need some restoring. Given that belief, you can understand why we wouldn’t buy your assumption that Catholics would be the only folks who could call themselves "Christian’ and look to HISTORY to prove it!

We won’t get into the great schism that produced the Eastern churches.

I am aware of Protestants that have been taught that Catholics are not Christians. It really just makes me laugh at their ignorance of Christian history, but it does not make me uncomfortable.

It should. There is only one reason to deny a fellow believer in Christ the title “Christian,” and it is not an admirable one.

Again, the differences between various “Christian” faiths is a relatively recent event, historically speaking, and the Mormon faith is barely a blurb on the screen. As far as non-Catholic “Christians” are concerned I would agree with you. There is little to no unity of faith, but the Catholic Church has been here since the beginning of Christianity and is, by definition, the only church that can legitimately lay claim to the name.

Well, given what our claims are, that’s begging a pretty big question, don’t you think?

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholic Church remained intact throughout every “massive debate” as it carried out its mission and purpose to defend the deposit of faith handed down through the Apostles from Jesus Christ himself. The Church has been attacked from both without and within, but has stood fast. History itself documents its authenticity and unique character of apostolic succession. This is not merely a claim, but a historically demonstrable fact.

It may be argued that the name has ‘stood fast,’ but the thing itself? That is a question. There is this nation, Italy. It has remained Italy (in some translation of the name) for 2000 years.

But…is it the same Italy as it was fifteen hundred years ago? A thousand? Five hundred…even a century?

Well, no, actually. The language has changed. The culture has changed. Certainly the rulers have, as has it’s influence, great or small. Nobody, looking at Italy now, would recognize the place of Mussolini, or of Napoleon’s son, or of the Borgias…or of Caesar…if not for the architecture.

The argument that Protestants give…and that we give…is that the Catholics DID change. Keeping the name didn’t stop that.

I’m making this point, not to attack Catholic beliefs, but simply to point out that using the idea that the Catholic church has been around since day 33 AD and has not changed as proof that it is the 'only Christian church," is begging the question, since it is precisely THAT claim which those who “protest” are contesting.

You can believe anything you wish to believe, PopeBono, but we all must weigh the evidence. Regardless of what you believe about Joseph Smith, the fact remains that the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for 1500 years, and even longer for you. So yes, when someone comes along 1800+ years later and wishes to claim the name of the one who started your Church while proposing beliefs in direct opposition to its teachings, I hope you can at least sort of understand how it might not be well received.

Blessings.

In return, I hope that you can understand that, when someone comes along and claims that y’all have indeed changed, and that either reformation or restoration is required, that a response of “are not!!” isn’t going to get anywhere, either.

 

[dianaiad]

from post #138

In all honesty as one who came out of Mormonism, without beleiving in the Trinity I don’t know how one could become a Saint. If you do not know that is is God who does all good works in you how can you give him all the credit? A Saint takes none, if they do they go to confession to start fresh, and they did go to Confession. Your children should learn what the common bond is in an authentic Saint. It has nothing to do with being righteouse and everything to do with knowing they are not. This helps one rely more on Christ. He makes up all the difference, not a bit here and there.

This sounds very much like a sola fidean, Calvinist approach. Free will doesn’t come into this?

…never mind, passing thought. The real question is; why is it not possible to give God all the credit for all good things if one is not Trinitarian?

Dianaiad, As he was being barbecued alive he said to his captors, “Turn me; this side is done.” Another was asked by the ruler of Rome to bring him all the churches gold and silver within one day or he would be beheaded. On the twenty-fourth hour he brought the patrons of the church, along with the mentally ill, the sick and disabled. He said very politely and from the heart, “These are the treasures of our church.” He was immediately beheaded.
Father Isaac Jogues, on a mission to North America to convert the native Mohawks, Huron and Iroquois, was captured and forced to run the gauntlet, his beard pulled out, his fingers sawed off with oyster shells, his flesh cut from him and eaten by the villagers. At night he was tied spread-eagle to the ground and the children were encouraged to throw live coals on his bare flesh. After he was Martyred 1,400 North American Indians came to Christ as a direct result of his teaching while in captivity. What He did best was point others to Jesus.
What is a saint? What is the common thread Dianaid? We know that Saint Peter, before he was transformed at Pentecost, denied Jesus three times and later went on to become our Churches first apostolic leader. We also have a paradox in which saints such as the familiar Joan of Ark were actually killed by some in the church. Burnt at the stake. To a Catholic, saints are merely humans, some of whom were miserable people at one time during their lives such as Saint Paul who once had Christians put to their deaths. But one by one the common thread of the Holy Spirit connects each of them.
Continued

As I said, I do not denigrate, mock or in anyway wish to show disrespect to those men and women who lived lives like this, or died like this.

It’s just that…I have in my own family tree examples of men and women who lived great lives, and who died for their faiths. It’s not a matter of bringing Catholic Saints DOWN. It’s a matter of acknowledging that the rest of us can be, and a whole lot ARE, on the same level as they. If that is so, if this sort of life is actually what is expected of us, then…

Try it this way. Whether it is the truth or not (and yes, I do understand that the respect and honor you give Saints is NOT the worship you give the Father and the Son), the perception from outside is that Catholic Saints are very similar to the lesser gods of the Hindus, who pick a specific Mahadeva to worship and honor because Brahman, or Parabrahman, is a little too overwhelming. (and yes, I know that this is simplistic, and any Hindu would yell at me!)

We aren’t talking about what Catholic doctrine and beliefs about Saints actually are, here. I’m talking about outside perception of them, and, frankly, I’m also talking about reality in some Catholic cultures. Some DO put Saints in the place of their old gods, and slip pagan beliefs in there with them. Some DO slip from dulia to outright worship. They should not, but they do.

So, those of us who look at this sort of thing want to avoid even the temptation. Therefore, no Saints. Perhaps the best way to explain our outlook is this: We Mormons call ourselves saints. Little “s…” because we are all supposed to BE saints.

 

[Todd520]

You do realize that all of these verses are cited by Trinitarians in support of our belief in three distinct divine Persons? If you read this page:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html

that was cited earlier, you would notice that many if not all of the verses you refer to are also cited as support for the Trinitarian belief in three distinct divine Persons. We believe that the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are not attached to each other either (proving your “spirit chimera” analogy false). Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself. Etc

It seems as if you aren’t really aware of what Trinitarians believe…You seem to be confusing it with Modalism.

CatholicGuy,
yes yes yes, we do agree on three distinct divine persons -

However, the scriptures themselves do not offer any explanation of how the threeness and the oneness of God are related. The biblical writers were singularly uninterested in that problem or in questions dealing with God’s essence, his substance, or the philosophical definition of his nature. In effect, the Council of Nicea created Catholic Scripture to answer these questions. I call it new scripture because it’s too much to just be interpretation.

We certainly don’t dispute the Council’s right to have revelation and create new scripture for the CC

 

[SirThomasMore]

CatholicGuy,
yes yes yes, we do agree on three distinct divine persons -

However, the scriptures themselves do not offer any explanation of how the threeness and the oneness of God are related. The biblical writers were singularly uninterested in that problem or in questions dealing with God’s essence, his substance, or the philosophical definition of his nature. In effect, the Council of Nicea created Catholic Scripture to answer these questions. I call it new scripture because it’s too much to just be interpretation.

We certainly don’t dispute the Council’s right to have revelation and create new scripture for the CC

Actually, Trinity is Biblical. It seems odd for someone who has a church that creates doctrine about God once being a sinful man and jesus being weak and dihonest and the older brother of Satan to have a problem with the teaching and docrine that has been around since the beginning of time

 

[SteveVH]

The problem with that is history. The fact is, there were a LOT of different Christian beliefs out there from early on until one specific set of dogmas/doctrines ‘"won.’ All the rest were labeled ‘heresy,’ but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist! From where I sit, this is one of the most classic examples of 'the winners write the history books" there is.

Yes, Diana, one set of specific doctrines did win, the doctrines given to the Church by the Apostles, whose mission was to defend the deposit of faith given to it by Christ against error being brought in by heretics. In order to defend the very purpose of the existence of your faith I understand that you must necessarily believe that the heretics were right and the wrong group “won”; at least that is what your statement logically implies. If you don’t mind, it would be interesting to know which group, labeled as heretical by the Church, you believe was right.

In fact, it’s a perfect example of the old saying that 'treason never prospers, because if it prospers, none dare call it treason."

Seems like that might also apply to the LDS.

The LDS claim is that the ‘winners’ went off the doctrinal rails, and truth really did need some restoring. Given that belief, you can understand why we wouldn’t buy your assumption that Catholics would be the only folks who could call themselves "Christian’ and look to HISTORY to prove it!

Well, right or wrong, there was still only one Church who’s doctrines defined what Christians believed for 1500 years. Sorry, that’s history Diana. It may not be the way you want it but it is fact and you can’t deny it. If I read about Buddha and decide that the Buddhists have it all wrong and that what he really meant was that we should pursue wealth and power in order to obtain happiness, do you think my new group would be recognized as Buddhist by the rest of the Buddhist world? C’mon.

We won’t get into the great schism that produced the Eastern churches.

Good idea because our doctrines are, for all intents and purposes, identical. It’s a moot point.

It should. There is only one reason to deny a fellow believer in Christ the title “Christian,” and it is not an admirable one.

So, if I follow your logic here, anyone, regardless of what they believe, can claim the name Christian? Is there any measure, any standard? Just say I believe in Jesus and I’ve earned the right, even though I believe he actually orginated from the moon and that we should be sharing green cheese at communion? Where do you draw the line, or do you?

Well, given what our claims are, that’s begging a pretty big question, don’t you think?

It begs no question in my mind but I understand it would in yours.

 

[Javl]

Originaly posted by dianaid

The problem with that is history. The fact is, there were a LOT of different Christian beliefs out there from early on until one specific set of dogmas/doctrines ‘"won.’ All the rest were labeled ‘heresy,’ but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist! From where I sit, this is one of the most classic examples of 'the winners write the history books" there is.

Yes, from almost from the beginning there were a myriad of “Christian” beliefs and Paul, Peter and the rest of the Apostles warned against them, not only for that time but for the times to come.

What is the Catholic Church today is the only Church that has held on to and imparts the beliefs of the Apostles, and to try to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Originaly posted by dianaaid

Well, no, actually. The language has changed. The culture has changed. Certainly the rulers have, as has it’s influence, great or small. Nobody, looking at Italy now, would recognize the place of Mussolini, or of Napoleon’s son, or of the Borgias…or of Caesar…if not for the architecture.

The argument that Protestants give…and that we give…is that the Catholics DID change. Keeping the name didn’t stop that.

I’m making this point, not to attack Catholic beliefs, but simply to point out that using the idea that the Catholic church has been around since day 33 AD and has not changed as proof that it is the 'only Christian church," is begging the question, since it is precisely THAT claim which those who “protest” are contesting.

Can you please give me some concrete eveidence as to how and where the Catholic Church has changed? Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shlom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

CatholicGuy,
yes yes yes, we do agree on three distinct divine persons -

However, the scriptures themselves do not offer any explanation of how the threeness and the oneness of God are related. The biblical writers were singularly uninterested in that problem or in questions dealing with God’s essence, his substance, or the philosophical definition of his nature. In effect, the Council of Nicea created Catholic Scripture to answer these questions. I call it new scripture because it’s too much to just be interpretation.

We certainly don’t dispute the Council’s right to have revelation and create new scripture for the CC

Once again, Jesus Himself says that the TRINITY IS ONE. I have given you examples that you have ignored. God is ONE in three Divine Persons and those three Divine Persons are ONE GOD. I am led to believe that the LDS Church espouses the same trinitarian formula and belief of Herbert W. Armstong and his "Wideworld Radio Church of God’. Needless to say that he was in total error. Today that Church has recanted and has subscribed to the true trinitarian formula.

Also, no Catholic Church Council has ever had the authority to delete or add to scripture. The NT was finalized with the Book of the Apocalypse ( Revelation ). There is no scripture after that, as per John’s warning ( Rev 22:18-19 ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Todd520]

Javl my boy
The bible never mentioned the word Trinity, so we can’t believe Jesus said :

I stand by my statement that the RCC is inferring too much to call the Trinity biblical scripture. Again, this does not make it wrong, just not blblical

Instead of throwing a red herring (Herbert Armstrong?) just address my statement with significant scriputre that explains God’s essence, his substance, how the threeness and the oneness of God are related.

What you’ve provided is much easier to interpret as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost share ONE PURPOSE (LDS view).

Again, I don’t object to the Council of Nicea creating doctrine for the CC

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, Diana, one set of specific doctrines did win, the doctrines given to the Church by the Apostles, whose mission was to defend the deposit of faith given to it by Christ against error being brought in by heretics.

Yes Steve…but the thing is, no matter WHAT set of doctrines won, that’s what the claim would be, right? I understand that you believe that you are right. The point I’m trying to make here is that, obviously, I don’t think you are right. Since I don’t, claiming that you are right because you are right isn’t going to work as an argument.

In order to defend the very purpose of the existence of your faith I understand that you must necessarily believe that the heretics were right and the wrong group “won”; at least that is what your statement logically implies.

Well, like you, if the right group continued, they wouldn’t be heretics. But yes, you are correct, which is why claiming that Catholics have the sole right to the name ‘Christian’ and have the sole right to determine Christianity for others because they’ve been ‘truth’ from the beginning* Is begging the question.

If you don’t mind, it would be interesting to know which group, labeled as heretical by the Church, you believe was right.

The group right around Jesus, and which pretty much disappeared when the last apostle died. Remember, we don’t claim that you are 100% wrong, but that you are wrong on some things, and don’t have the priesthood authority.

(about the ‘none dare call it treason’ quote) Seems like that might also apply to the LDS.

Well, yeah…it does. Which of course is why claiming that we are ‘right’ because we are here now would be begging the question…and which is why we don’t make a claim as silly as that.

Well, right or wrong, there was still only one Church who’s doctrines defined what Christians believed for 1500 years.

That, my friend, is a classic fallacy; the length of time people believe a thing does NOT affect the truth of that thing. Remember; ancient Egypt believed in Ra and his hierarchy of gods for a lot longer than Christians have been around, but very few, if any, people now believe that Ra was ever real.

Sorry, that’s history Diana. It may not be the way you want it but it is fact and you can’t deny it. If I read about Buddha and decide that the Buddhists have it all wrong and that what he really meant was that we should pursue wealth and power in order to obtain happiness, do you think my new group would be recognized as Buddhist by the rest of the Buddhist world? C’mon.

Bad analogy, Steve. (grin) Bhuddists have no problem at all with acquiring wealth. they believe that a Bhuddist is 'good and praiseworthy …who accumulates holdings in rightful ways and utilizes it for the good and happiness of both [him]self and others.( Ven. Jotika of Parng Loung, a Burmese Bhuddist monk)

Good idea because our doctrines are, for all intents and purposes, identical. It’s a moot point.

They are separate enough to have caused a major rift. For one thing, I understand that there is no doctrine of Papal infallibility for the Eastern Orthodoxy…and there is also the way the different groups think that original sin affects humanity, and, I understand, the Eastern Orthodox doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. I could be wrong about this, of course.

So, if I follow your logic here, anyone, regardless of what they believe, can claim the name Christian?

Well, I think that they need to be following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as they believe them to be, and claim the name. That is, Jesus Christ must be at the center of their belief system. The name “Christian” is a classification of a very broad belief system, not an imprimatur of salvation.

Is there any measure, any standard?

Yep. I just gave it to you.

Just say I believe in Jesus and I’ve earned the right, even though I believe he actually orginated from the moon and that we should be sharing green cheese at communion?

Well, there are quite a few Christians out there who think that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is a lot weirder than sharing green cheese, Steve. but yes, that would make you a Christian. I would append a few adjectives to it, like ‘really strange,’ or ‘fringe,’ or ‘definitely odd’ or at least ‘not exactly mainstream,’ but hey. Not my call here.

Where do you draw the line, or do you?

I gave you the ‘line,’ which, by the way, is the one drawn when you look up the definition of the word “Christian” in the dictionary.

The problem is, as soon as you add doctrinal requirements to the definition, like “Christians MUST be Trinitarian,” you are really changing the definition to ‘Christian’ means 'someone who believes the same thing I do," or “Christians believe the truth.”

When you do that, suddenly there are no Christians at all, because nobody believes exactly the same things about religion that anybody else does, and nobody has all the truth.

I repeat: there is only one reason to proclaim that someone else is ‘not Christian,’ and that motive is not one that Christ would approve of.

It begs no question in my mind but I understand it would in yours.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, from almost from the beginning there were a myriad of “Christian” beliefs and Paul, Peter and the rest of the Apostles warned against them, not only for that time but for the times to come.

What is the Catholic Church today is the only Church that has held on to and imparts the beliefs of the Apostles, and to try to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Thank you for proving my point so well, Javi. Of course you believe that…you would be incredibly hypocritical to make any other claim. The point is, I’m trying to make the point that those of us who are NOT Catholic obviously have a problem with that claim. Therefore it IS the question, not the answer.

 

[SteveVH]

It may be argued that the name has ‘stood fast,’ but the thing itself? That is a question. There is this nation, Italy. It has remained Italy (in some translation of the name) for 2000 years.

But…is it the same Italy as it was fifteen hundred years ago? A thousand? Five hundred…even a century?

Well, no, actually. The language has changed. The culture has changed. Certainly the rulers have, as has it’s influence, great or small. Nobody, looking at Italy now, would recognize the place of Mussolini, or of Napoleon’s son, or of the Borgias…or of Caesar…if not for the architecture.

The argument that Protestants give…and that we give…is that the Catholics DID change. Keeping the name didn’t stop that.

Except that we can prove that our doctrines, the doctrines which defined Christianity, have not changed. It is all documented for any that truly seek truth to see for themselves. It is why Cardinal Henry Newman converted to Catholicism while seeking to prove the Church wrong. We have Sacred Scripture and the testimonies of the early Church. We have our “Golden Plates” and any who wish can view them. We know what was believed and what is believed and it hasn’t changed. The characteristics of the Church are not at all like the characteristics of a country with the effects of modernity, so the comparison is ill conceived. It was created and is protected by the Unchangeable. God Himself.

I’m making this point, not to attack Catholic beliefs, but simply to point out that using the idea that the Catholic church has been around since day 33 AD and has not changed as proof that it is the 'only Christian church," is begging the question, since it is precisely THAT claim which those who “protest” are contesting.

Contest away. I understand that this is absolutely necessary in order for your faith to have any purpose, but it proves nothing as to the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. The fact remains that for fifteen centuries the term “Christianity” was defined by the doctrines of the Catholic Church, regardless of those that now claim those doctrines as false.

In return, I hope that you can understand that, when someone comes along and claims that y’all have indeed changed, and that either reformation or restoration is required, that a response of “are not!!” isn’t going to get anywhere, either.

Nor would I expect it to. But the fact that one “claims” our doctrines have changed does not, necessarily, make it so. That is one the many things I love about my Church. We can back up our claims with real history, real documentation and real testimony from the early Church that prove our doctrines have never changed. Non-Catholics can cry all they want and claim anything they want but they can’t change the demonstrable truth.

 

[Pregustator]

Needless to say, as a Catholic Christian, I do not believe in the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s revelations, and I do not believe in the story told in the Book of Mormon. I disbelieve it more from the point of view of history, even, than from the point of view of religion.

That having been said, I would also like to note that I have never once met a Mormon I didn’t like. Whatever they have, though not the truth of the Gospel, there is something about the LDS Church that seems to fill most Mormons with a genuine sense of moral decency, a fervent patriotism, and just plain good manners.

They’re just really nice, decent people. And as bizarre as I find their religion (and they would say the same of mine, I’m sure), I really value the Mormons, as neighbors, as friends, and as Americans. They’re fine people and exemplary citizens.

I can’t say the same of all the Catholics I’ve met, I am sorry to say, and I certainly can’t say the same of the Evangelicals I have met. If I could choose my neighbors, in fact, I would pick alot of Mormons to surround me, knowing for sure that my neighborhood would be quiet, safe, and friendly.

In fact, if the Mormons were to all convert to Catholicsm, en masse, I’d want them in charge of the Church!