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

[JeanMichel]

I thought I would throw my two cents into the discussion.
First, Check this verse out:
1John 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one .

Pay particular attention to the last few words, particularly to εν.
It means one. The literal translation of this final statement is, “these three one are.” The Greek word, pronounced “hen,” is, according to Robinson’s Morphological Analysis Codes, singular in number. This refers specifically to them being one in number, not to bearing a singular purpose.

The three persons of the Holy Trinity are compenetrative. Where one is, there the other two are. Jesus said, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20 This is his promise to be with his Church in the Eucharist. Where Christ is, so also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. As evidence of that, remember that Christ said, “And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” Luke 24:49 Then in Acts 2:4, the promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit, filled the people. Remember also, that Christ said, in John 14:7-9, “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him and have seen him…He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” In other words, where Jesus is, so also the Father is and the Holy Spirit.

To quote Boethius’ De Trinitate (written around AD 520): “There are many who claim as theirs the dignity of the Christian religion…The belief of this faith concerning the Unity of the Trinity is as follows: “the Father,” they say, “is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.” Therefore Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, not three Gods. The cause of this union is absence of differnce: difference cannot be avoided by those who add to or take from the Trinity, as for instance the Arians, who, by graduating the Trinity according to merit, break it up and convert it to Plurality… For whereas we say God thrice when we say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, these three unities do not produce a plurality of number…So, then if God be predicated thrice, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the threefold predication does not result in plural number. The risk of that, as has been said, attends only on those who distinguish them according to merit. But Catholics, allowing no difference of merit in God, and positing that form to be as it really is, nor thinking his essence to be other than it is, rightly regard the statement “the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and this Trinity is one God,” not as an enumeration of different things but as a reiteration of one and the same thing, like the statement, “blade and brand are one sword,” or, “sun, sun, and sun are one sun…” Still in saying, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” we are not using synonymous terms…“Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” though the same, are not identical.”

I appreciate when an individual supports his faith with scriptural support. However, at times it serves little purpose other than to motivate another to provide a similar list of verses to support their position. What is the end result or what has been achieved?

Scripture can be made to support whatever is desired. However, there is one truth; there is not need to compromise when it comes to truth, but there is no need to arguing about it either. Teach Christ; share his love; be his disciples and prove it by our actions. Have faith that God will take care of the rest and of those that are lost or wander on crooked paths of false doctrine. We can force no one to heaven and heated conversation pushes out the Spirit that we all need.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, your choice.

I think that, given that the definition I use is inclusive and doesn’t hurt anybody (or make those who honestly believe in Christ “other,”) I’ll stick with it.

It does not, after all, make any concessions to others in terms of truthfulness of doctrine or as to spiritual or priesthood authority. It simply acknowledges that very important thing we have in common.

After all, history has proven…and I do mean it ALWAYS happens…that before any group of Christians decides to persecute another group, the first thing that happens is that the target group is made ‘other,’ and is declared ‘not Christian.’

Every.

Single.

Time.

Given that, it might be a good idea to not do this.

Or, it could be that there realy is one, true Church and the others are, to one degree or another, heretical and really should not be called Christian in the pure sense of the word. The definition given in today’s dictionaries has no bearing on the right of “others” to claim this title. They claim and therefore it is defined in light of those claims.

 

[Todd520]

Or, it could be that there realy is one, true Church and the others are, to one degree or another, heretical and really should not be called Christian in the pure sense of the word. The definition given in today’s dictionaries has no bearing on the right of “others” to claim this title. They claim and therefore it is defined in light of those claims.

Any heretical religion SHOULD NOT BE CALLED CATHOLIC. I agree 100% with your sentiment and your right to dictate the definition of what is Catholic and what is heretical.

I just can’t understand why Catholics also feel compelled to own and redefine the generic word Christian, as if it was trademarked by the CC.

 

[Javl]

Any heretical religion SHOULD NOT BE CALLED CATHOLIC. I agree 100% with your sentiment and your right to dictate the definition of what is Catholic and what is heretical.

I just can’t understand why Catholics also feel compelled to own and redefine the generic word Christian, as if it was trademarked by the CC.

Ah, but it was! The first Christians WERE CATHOLIC. It cannot be proven otherwise. Also, I’m still waiting for your answer to my post #171.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Diana:

I’m still waiting for an answer to my post #172.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JeanMichel]

Ah, but it was! The first Christians WERE CATHOLIC. It cannot be proven otherwise. Also, I’m still waiting for your answer to my post #171.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Shalom Javl,

Were Catholic? By what definition of Catholic do you make this claim? The Catholic Church did not exist for hundreds of years. Current history states that this was a time of an array of conflicting doctrines and no central “church” head, rather there were diverse leaders/bishops, etc.

I do understand that it is your “belief” that it was the Catholic Church, but that is not supported by history, but only belief. I respect your belief as I do the beliefs of all others, but when it comes to historical facts, then beliefs must be put aside and look at history.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Shalom Javl,

Were Catholic? By what definition of Catholic do you make this claim? The Catholic Church did not exist for hundreds of years. Current history states that this was a time of an array of conflicting doctrines and no central “church” head, rather there were diverse leaders/bishops, etc.

I do understand that it is your “belief” that it was the Catholic Church, but that is not supported by history, but only belief. I respect your belief as I do the beliefs of all others, but when it comes to historical facts, then beliefs must be put aside and look at history.

When did the Catholic Church come into existence? At what point are you making the distinction between “did not exist” and “exist”?

 

[Javl]

Shalom Javl,

Were Catholic? By what definition of Catholic do you make this claim? The Catholic Church did not exist for hundreds of years. Current history states that this was a time of an array of conflicting doctrines and no central “church” head, rather there were diverse leaders/bishops, etc.

I do understand that it is your “belief” that it was the Catholic Church, but that is not supported by history, but only belief. I respect your belief as I do the beliefs of all others, but when it comes to historical facts, then beliefs must be put aside and look at history.

I have my proof, but since you are making the charge, prove that I am wrong.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[absitinvidia]

To continue, The Trinity is the central Mystery of the Christian faith. It always has been. To throw out the Mystery of the Trinity and replace it with what Mormons have, is the same old Arian heresy all over again. Even Boethius, back in the fifth and sixth centuries, made note of the differences between real Christianity and the Arian heresy. And it means that you technically are not a Christian. Which is why Mormon baptism is not recognized by the Church, because you have a different trinity altogether. Technically, you were never baptised, so technically you cannot be heretics, but you adhere to belief in a heretical notion. (Heresy is, according to the Catechism, “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” So when we say that in order to be Christian, you must accept the doctrine of the Trinity, and you say no, you prevent yourselves from becoming Christian.)

Anyway, this “apostasy” business is nonsense. Firstly, if you actually believe in the Bible, you will find that Jesus is the Truth (John 1:14 and John 14:6). Being Truth he cannot deceive because it is not in his nature. Jesus built a Church and made Peter its leader (Matthew 16:18) He then told Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matthew 16:18) He told his Church, just before his Ascension, in Luke 24:49 he would send the promise of the Father to his Church, and in John 16:13, said, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” Jesus, furthermore, in the final verse of the Gospel of Matthew, says, “and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” And in Acts 20:28, it says that Jesus purchased the Church with his own blood.

Why would Jesus, who founded the Church (Matthew 16:18), declared it perpetual because the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), purchased that Church with his own blood (Acts 20:28), and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it (Luke 24:49 and John 16:13) tell that Church he would be with them always (Matthew 28:20), especially seeing as how the Church is his bride (Revelation 21:2), if he were going to leave it and allow it to fall into error? That makes Jesus either fickle or a liar, and he is neither.

By the way, the Catholic Church came into existence with Matthew 16:18. Writings from the very early Church even call it “Catholic.”

JeanMichel,
While I appreciate your reply, there are reasons for citing lists, etc. First, Jesus said, “he who hears you hears me.” Even if someone does not place stock in what I write now, I hope that they will look up the verses and think about them, and maybe those who are not as close to Christ as they could be will grow closer. Second, Jesus did not say to sit back and let the lost wander, in fact, he commanded his Church, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations.” (Matthew 28:19). His parable in Luke 15:1-7 teaches that we should go after those who are lost.

See how that works?

 

[JeanMichel]

Diana:

Sorry to say, but in my discussions with an LSD member in another thread, he admitted that there was a difference between the Mormon Trinity and Christian Trinity. This difference not only involves different belief, but also different make up.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

P.S. Is it possible not all Mormons hold to the same belief?

Javl, I have begun to read this thread from the beginning. I wish I could have contributed earlier. LDS (not LSD, which is something altogether different) do claim the actual teaching of the Godhead as found in the Bible. The concept of the Trinity, as Holland quoted, is a Nicene doctrine. There is definitely a difference between the two teachings on the Godhead and the Trinity.

It is also true that neither church accepts the baptism of the other. The LDS Church has always taken the position that no baptism is acceptable other than by those having authority (which is only found in their Church). The Catholic Church has only recently rejected the LDS baptism. Appears like a game of one-upmanship to me, but it is a topic above my understanding of truth and is firmly in the provenice of organized religions.

I know of no truth greater than Jesus crucified and resurrected. All abolute truth devolves and hands on these two great truths and their full meaning. Though people may quibble on the subsets of doctrines, I wish they would always remember that both groups claim salvation from Jesus. Another religion for different doctrines? Hardly. It is just sad that we allow arguments to take precedence when the greatest truth is shared.

 

[JeanMichel]

When did the Catholic Church come into existence? At what point are you making the distinction between “did not exist” and “exist”?

When did the Bishop of Rome gain precedence among all other bishops? It was not immediately after the resurrection of Christ. Nor was it after AD 100, AD 200, or AD 300. In all this period, who was the head? There was none, thus there was no single church.

I could be wrong and I am willing to be corrected. Do you have a reference for historical facts that differ? I apologize, but this topic has moved beyond one’s faith of what history was. In doing so, some are easily offended. My intent is not to offend, but to discuss this respectfully. As a seeker of truth, I begin from a skeptical position, and for truth, to a position of spiritual knowledge. What historical references have you?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Javl, I have begun to read this thread from the beginning. I wish I could have contributed earlier. LDS (not LSD, which is something altogether different) do claim the actual teaching of the Godhead as found in the Bible. The concept of the Trinity, as Holland quoted, is a Nicene doctrine. There is definitely a difference between the two teachings on the Godhead and the Trinity.

The concept of the Trinity is clearly found in the Bible, as has been demonstrated repeatedly (can’t remember if it was this thread or another, since there are so many). The concept of the Trinity is that there are three distinct divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who together are considered one God.

Unfortunately, many Mormons (and many Trinitarians) confuse the Trinity doctrine with Modalism and other heresies, as is clear from statements made by Mormon posters such as Zerinus and Todd. I also started a thread awhile ago that shows this error perpetuated in various Mormon settings (books, General Conference):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=464357

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

When did the Bishop of Rome gain precedence among all other bishops? It was not immediately after the resurrection of Christ. Nor was it after AD 100, AD 200, or AD 300. In all this period, who was the head? There was none, thus there was no single church.

I could be wrong and I am willing to be corrected. Do you have a reference for historical facts that differ? I apologize, but this topic has moved beyond one’s faith of what history was. In doing so, some are easily offended. My intent is not to offend, but to discuss this respectfully. As a seeker of truth, I begin from a skeptical position, and for truth, to a position of spiritual knowledge. What historical references have you?

JeanMichel, it is up to you to prove your assertion that the Catholic Church did not exist until hundreds of years after Christ, since you stated that “current history” proves your view. Your above response did not answer the question of when did the Catholic Church come into existence, and at what point do you make a distinction between “did not exist” and “exist”? Please answer the question, along with citation of “current history” that you said supports your view, and then I’ll present my case, as has been done many times before by many Catholics (and Orthodox).

 

[JeanMichel]

The concept of the Trinity is clearly found in the Bible, as has been demonstrated repeatedly (can’t remember if it was this thread or another, since there are so many). The concept of the Trinity is that there are three distinct divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who together are considered one God.

Unfortunately, many Mormons (and many Trinitarians) confuse the Trinity doctrine with Modalism and other heresies, as is clear from statements made by Mormon posters such as Zerinus and Todd. I also started a thread awhile ago that shows this error perpetuated in various Mormon settings (books, General Conference):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=464357

Hello NY,

It is difficult for individuals, regardless of religious affiliation, to grasp the doctrine of the Trinity. Some might say it is not to be comprehended, but apprehended. I would forgive Trinitarians as well as Mormons for their lack of understanding or confusion.

I approach it from a different position. First, it was not a doctrine that Jesus felt strong enough about to make it clear to his followers. As such, it is either not an important doctrine or not a doctrine that was imperative to understand at that time. Second, if that is the case, then why do so man Christians debate the issue? Third, nothing is more important than knowing that Jesus was crucified for each of us. He bled for us that we might be forgiven and that we might be also rise from the dead. You (as in the communal you) want to segregate yourselves based upon a doctrine that was not clarified in the Bible? You want to persecute one another for your differences in understanding in this belief. There is nothing greater than the shed blood of Christ; why trample over his blood to argue about the Trinity? Do any of you really think the doctrine of the Trinity is more important than the blood of the Savior? If so, where do you get this priority of doctrine?

 

[SteveVH]

Any heretical religion SHOULD NOT BE CALLED CATHOLIC. I agree 100% with your sentiment and your right to dictate the definition of what is Catholic and what is heretical.

I just can’t understand why Catholics also feel compelled to own and redefine the generic word Christian, as if it was trademarked by the CC.

Because we are the original Church. There was no difference between Christian and Catholic for 1500 years. The terms were synonymous. Logically then, it was the Catholic Church, by the very nature of the situation, that defined what it means to be Christian.

Who, do you think, might be a credible source to define what it means to be Muslim? Would you run to some offshoot of Islam in order to ascertain the beliefs contained within Islam?

Here’s the deal though, Todd. I do consider the mainline Protestant faiths Christian, though in an imperfect form. Not only I, but the Church, officially. This is so because they hold to the most basic of Christian doctrines. They also have much error. Nevertheless they are held as our “separated brethren”.

You must admit that LDS doctrine is something completely different. So different that our Church does not even consider the Mormon faith heretical. It is so far removed from “Christian” doctrine, as defined by the Catholic Church (and the rest of the “Christian” world) that it constitutes another religion entirely.

 

[JeanMichel]

JeanMichel, it is up to you to prove your assertion that the Catholic Church did not exist until hundreds of years after Christ, since you stated that “current history” proves your view. Your above response did not answer the question of when did the Catholic Church come into existence, and at what point do you make a distinction between “did not exist” and “exist”? Please answer the question, along with citation of “current history” that you said supports your view, and then I’ll present my case, as has been done many times before by many Catholics (and Orthodox).

My Brother in Christ Jesus,

If I prove that contemporary historians prove my position, what will I have achieved? I will not have dislodged your faith, I will not have proven a “truth”, I will not even have strengthen my position. I give you my word that there are a host of current scholars that have stated this position clearly (Armstrong, White and Ehrman being the most recent). This is not new or unique position. Go to any secular book store and open any history book about the formation of Christianity and you will find a plethora of information.

The Catholic Church did not exist until the Bishop of Rome was able to gain precedence among/over all Bishops. An orgainzation does not exist until there is at least an orgainzation. Early Bishops for cities were not chosen by a single entity, but by the local community. The “church” at this time was more group of independent organizations rather than a single entity that all reported to Rome.

I will not enter into a debate where an individual’s faith is at stake. This is a foundational belief of yours and I respect that deeply. I am one whose foundation is built only on truth, I seek it wherever it may exist. I do not seek for truth in a single church or religion. If I am anything, I strive to be a disciple of Christ. If I can do anything I seek to encourage all to follow Him.

 

[JeanMichel]

Because we are the original Church. There was no difference between Christian and Catholic for 1500 years. The terms were synonymous. Logically then, it was the Catholic Church, by the very nature of the situation, that defined what it means to be Christian.

Who, do you think, might be a credible source to define what it means to be Muslim? Would you run to some offshoot of Islam in order to ascertain the beliefs contained within Islam?

Here’s the deal though, Todd. I do consider the mainline Protestant faiths Christian, though in an imperfect form. Not only I, but the Church, officially. This is so because they hold to the most basic of Christian doctrines. They also have much error. Nevertheless they are held as our “separated brethren”.

You must admit that LDS doctrine is something completely different. So different that our Church does not even consider the Mormon faith heretical. It is so far removed from “Christian” doctrine, as defined by the Catholic Church (and the rest of the “Christian” world) that it constitutes another religion entirely.

Steve, could the definition you use for being a Christian be found in the Bible? Could your definition be applied to the early apostles? This is what is so remarkable; your definition is not found in the Bible and Jesus and the Twelves cannot be considered Christian by your definition.

What I find sad is that you actually believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is so important that a lack of belief in it is more important than a belief in Jesus crucified and resurrected. How did that belief become so minor when it came to developing the definition of Christian? The Trinity does not wash away our sins, but the blood of Christ does completely. May we all be surrounded by those who follow Jesus and seek to be washed in his blood. Nothing is more important than that knowledge.

 

[SteveVH]

When did the Bishop of Rome gain precedence among all other bishops? It was not immediately after the resurrection of Christ. Nor was it after AD 100, AD 200, or AD 300. In all this period, who was the head? There was none, thus there was no single church.

I could be wrong and I am willing to be corrected. Do you have a reference for historical facts that differ? I apologize, but this topic has moved beyond one’s faith of what history was. In doing so, some are easily offended. My intent is not to offend, but to discuss this respectfully. As a seeker of truth, I begin from a skeptical position, and for truth, to a position of spiritual knowledge. What historical references have you?

JeanMichel, first of all, welcome to this forum. The reason people are hesitant to “prove when the Bishop of Rome gained precedence among all other bishops” is that it has been done repeatedly on this forum. It is easy to make a one sentence claim. To respond to that claim may take pages and much time.

I think you will find that history does not testify to your claim. In any event, I would agree with the others who say show us your evidence. Back it up with documentation and then maybe we can have a conversation.

Blessings.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

My Brother in Christ Jesus,

If I prove that contemporary historians prove my position, what will I have achieved? I will not have dislodged your faith, I will not have proven a “truth”, I will not even have strengthen my position. I give you my word that there are a host of current scholars that have stated this position clearly (Armstrong, White and Ehrman being the most recent). This is not new or unique position. Go to any secular book store and open any history book about the formation of Christianity and you will find a plethora of information.

The Catholic Church did not exist until the Bishop of Rome was able to gain precedence among/over all Bishops. An orgainzation does not exist until there is at least an orgainzation. Early Bishops for cities were not chosen by a single entity, but by the local community. The “church” at this time was more group of independent organizations rather than a single entity that all reported to Rome.

I will not enter into a debate where an individual’s faith is at stake. This is a foundational belief of yours and I respect that deeply. I am one whose foundation is built only on truth, I seek it wherever it may exist. I do not seek for truth in a single church or religion. If I am anything, I strive to be a disciple of Christ. If I can do anything I seek to encourage all to follow Him.

Oh my.

You continue to make assertions without any historical support, and when asked to provide the “current history” that you referred to earlier, you don’t provide it, and instead throw out names (of Evangelicals and atheists as “current scholars”, hahaha) and say to look it up myself, essentially. It’s funny that you ask me for support of my viewpoint, yet when I asked you to do so (first), you do not. You have yet to answer the question of when the Catholic Church was founded. Of course Evangelical “scholars” would dispute what Catholic/Orthodox “scholars” have found in the historical record. This is not a surprise. I’ll wait until you can substantiate your claims with actual evidence, though it seems as if you are not interested in such a discussion, since you seem to make assertions, then when called on them, simply say “it doesn’t matter anyway”.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, could the definition you use for being a Christian be found in the Bible? Could your definition be applied to the early apostles? This is what is so remarkable; your definition is not found in the Bible and Jesus and the Twelves cannot be considered Christian by your definition.

What I find sad is that you actually believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is so important that a lack of belief in it is more important than a belief in Jesus crucified and resurrected. How did that belief become so minor when it came to developing the definition of Christian? The Trinity does not wash away our sins, but the blood of Christ does completely. May we all be surrounded by those who follow Jesus and seek to be washed in his blood. Nothing is more important than that knowledge.

Well, actually the Apostles were Catholic. The Catholic Church was born on Pentecost. The entire new Testament was written by Catholics and the canon of Sacred Scripture was determined by Catholics. Yes, the Bible which you attempt to use against us was given to you by us. You should spend some time reading the early Church fathers if you want to know what the early Church believed. If you think the doctrine of the Trinity is superfelous, I think you’ll be surprised. It is the most basic of all Christian doctrines and was revealed to us by Christ himself. You should read the posts above by absitinvidia for chapter and verse concerning this teaching.

As far as the definition of Chritian being found in the Bible, yes, of course it is. Read the New Testament. Christ very clearly laid out what is entailed in being one of his followers.